Order Complaint No. 315 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Date: 12th November, 2025
Quorum:

Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.), Hon’ble Chairperson
Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Hon’ble Member
Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu, Hon’ble Member
COMPLAINT NO. 315/2024/TGRERA

1. Ketrish Landmark Flat Owners
Mutually Aided Cooperative Maintenance Society Ltd.
At Sy no. 62, Anand Nagar Road No. 5,
Sri Indraprastha Colony, Bandlaguda Village,
Nagole, Uppal Mandal,
Medchal-Malkajgiri District, 500068.

…Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Ketrish Developers
Villa no. 12, Aditya Royal Palms Villa,
Qutub Shahi Tomb Road, Jamali Kunta, Samata Colony,
Tolichowki, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500008.

Represented by
i.

Mr. P. Prabhakar (Managing Partner)
Office at 6-28, Maktha Village, Korrenula Road,
Narapally, Ghatkesar,
Hyderabad, Telangana – 500088.

ii.

Smt. P. Saritha w/o P. Prabhakar (Partner)
Office at 6-28, Maktha Village, Korrenula Road,
Narapally, Ghatkesar,
Hyderabad, Telangana – 500088.

…Respondent
The present matter filed by the Complainant mentioned herein-above came up for
hearing before this Authority in the presence of the Complainant association along with its
counsel, and the Respondents with their counsel. Upon hearing the submissions of all 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 Respondent.
Page 1 of 21

---

It was submitted that the Complainants, being residents of "Ketrish Landmark

Apartments," were raising numerous allegations concerning structural defects, incomplete
works, and pending handovers by the Respondent. The specific contentions and allegations
submitted were as follows:
a. The drinking water (municipal water) line was reportedly not connected to the flats.
b. The Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) was not installed, with no initiation of work, despite
it allegedly being a requirement under an order from the State Level Environment Impact
Assessment Authority (SEIAA).
c. Structural and civil violations were alleged in the supermarket area, where the emergency
exit was purportedly encroached upon and converted into a part of the supermarket's
space.
d. Major water seepages were reported due to expansion joints between the three blocks. It
was contended that a temporary repair (fixing trays in the cellar) had become dangerous
to structural stability and a permanent remedy was yet to be made.
e. Potholes and cracks were present on the terrace floor of all three blocks and the
Clubhouse, leading to water seepage to lower floors and impacting structural stability.
f. Internal flat works remained pending, such as the fixing of taps and grill walls in
bathrooms and balconies.
g. Electrical change-over switchboards for power backup were not installed in many flats.
h. The Fire Safety System was only partially installed and was allegedly not as per safety
standards.
i. Electrical cables in the cellar were not properly installed in cable trays, were low in height,
and were not as per safety standards.
j. The overall building plastering and painting was not completed, with a second coat of
painting still pending.
k. Major water leakages were found in the Lift Head rooms and Staircase Head rooms of all
three blocks and the clubhouse.

Page 2 of 21

---

The Complainants stated that they had raised these issues with the Respondent multiple

times, both verbally and in writing. It was submitted that on 15th August 2021, the Respondent
had prepared a Minutes of Meeting on their letterhead, admitting to the issues and assuring that
the works would be completed by specific dates.
5.

It was contended that despite several demands and the aforementioned assurances, the

Respondent had avoided and refused to complete the works as promised in the brochure and
agreement. It was further alleged that the work which was completed was not of acceptable
quality.
6.

Finally, it was submitted that the Complainants had engaged a Registered Valuer and

Chartered Engineer to perform a structural inspection, and the resulting report was enclosed to
substantiate their claims regarding the defects and irregularities.
B. Reliefs Sought
7.

In light of the aforementioned facts, the Complainant had prayed for the following

reliefs before the Authority:

Page 3 of 21

---

To direct the Respondents to complete all promised and agreed-upon works in the
‘Ketrish Landmark Apartments’ project, including the rectification of all deficiencies
mentioned in Paragraph 4 of the complaint, within a timeframe stipulated by this
Hon’ble Authority and in adherence with high-quality standards.

ii.

To impose an appropriate penalty on the Respondents for violations of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and the applicable rules.

iii.

To award exemplary costs and compensation to the members of the Complainant
Association for the financial losses and hardship incurred, in accordance with the
provisions of the Act.

iv.

To pass any such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Authority may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

C. Counter filed by the Respondents
8.

It was affirmed by P. Prabhakar, the Managing Partner of Respondent No. 1 firm, who

stated he was well acquainted with the facts and was authorised by Respondent No. 2 to swear
the affidavit on her behalf as well.
9.

It was submitted at the outset that the complaint was devoid of merits, unsustainable in

law or facts, and liable to be dismissed. All averments and allegations were denied unless
specifically admitted.
10.

The Respondents challenged the maintainability of the complaint on the grounds of

alleged non-payment of Rs. 2,18,80,840/- by the flat owners and society. It was contended that
the Occupancy Certificate was issued and possession was delivered only after full satisfaction
and verification by the respective flat owners. It was alleged that the present complaint was
filed solely to harass the respondent firm, extract money, and defame its reputation.
11.

It was submitted that the complainant society's allegation of failure to complete or

provide agreed amenities was false. It was contended that the respondent had fulfilled all
contractual obligations, even exceeding the agreement terms, and that the claim of failure to
provide amenities was baseless. It was asserted that all grievances had been addressed, and no
works were pending except for the Municipal water connection.

Page 4 of 21

---

A prayer was made to the Hon'ble authority to appoint a commissioner to inspect the

premises and provide a report, alleging that the complainant had submitted misleading and
outdated photographs.
13.

The specific claims were replied to as under:

Claim (a) - Drinking Water: The allegation that the line was not connected was stated as
absolutely false. It was submitted that the respondent had applied along with other neighbour
builders and paid Rs. 1,00,000/- as processing fee. The HMWS&S Board had issued an
intimation dated 20.12.2022 for payment of Rs. 76,25,720/-. It was contended that after taking
possession, the society executive committee did not accept the connection in the neighbour's
name and applied afresh on 22.08.2023. The board then issued an approximate cost estimate
of Rs. 23,50,000/-, which was deemed highly expensive, and the respondent did not agree to
pay this amount. It was submitted that provision had been made to supply drinking water once
the HMWS laid the pipeline, but the payment for the pipeline was subject to the payment of
Rs. 2,18,80,840/- by the flat owners and society.
Claim (b) - Sewage Treatment Plant (STP): The allegation that the STP was not installed
was denied. Reference was made to State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority
(SEIAA) order no. SEIAA/TS/OL/MDCL-32/2017-3541 dated 25-1-2018. It was submitted
that the STP was installed properly, and an extra drain pipeline was also laid at a cost of around
Rs. 20 Lakhs, which was allegedly not paid by the complainant society. It was contended that
the society was utilizing the drain pipe but not using the STP, allegedly because running it
would incur an extra Rs. 1,50,000/- per month. It was stated that despite reminders and
intimation about a technician's visit for installation, the complainant never responded.
Claim (c) - Supermarket Area/Emergency Exit: The allegation of structural violation and
encroachment of the emergency exit was denied. It was submitted that the supermarket (Flat
admeasuring 1200 sq ft) was allotted as the Respondent firm's share. It was claimed that after
mutual understanding with society members, another Emergency Exit was constructed from
the west side Gate using the respondent's own funds. It was further submitted that the society
had been collecting maintenance charges from the respondent for the said flat (calculated at
Rs. 3/- for 1660 sq ft, allegedly including the exit area), implying society's consent.
Claim (d & e) - Water Seepages & Cracks: The allegations regarding major water seepages
due to expansion joints and potholes/cracks on the terrace leading to seepage were denied as
incorrect. It was submitted that all works were shown to the society before handing over
Page 5 of 21

---

Page 6 of 21

---

Page 7 of 21

---

It was further claimed that the respondent firm had done extra works involving higher

quality materials (tiles, doors) and provided extra amenities with the consent and request of the
buyers/members, incurring additional costs. A breakdown of these alleged extra costs was
provided:
Item
Extra

Amount Due
Quality

Doors Rs. 61,20,000/-

(2BHK and 3BHK)

& 58,80,000/-

Increased Tile Size

Rs. 19,80,840/-

Extra Clubhouse Spent Rs. 46,00,000/-

15.

Pneumatic Spent

Rs. 13,00,000/-

Extra Drain Pipe Lane

Rs. 20,00,000/-

Total Amount Due

Rs. 2,18,80,840/-

It was submitted that this total amount of Rs. 2,18,80,840/- was due from the members

for the extra costs incurred, and the respondent reserved the right to file a suit for recovery with
interest at 24% p.a.
16.

It was reiterated that the allegations were not maintainable and false, that flats were

occupied long back with basic amenities provided. The readiness to pay HMWS&SB charges
(Rs. 76,25,720/- as per initial approval) was reiterated, subject to repayment of the Rs.
2,18,80,840/- by society members.
17.

It was submitted that the report filed by the Registered Valuer and Chartered Engineer

was created, manipulated, and inspected in the absence of the respondents.
18.

It was submitted that the respondent firm had a good reputation, citing positive

feedback on their website. It was alleged that the society representative, Mr. Janardhan, had
filed the complaint with false allegations despite previous cordial interactions, degrading the
firm's reputation. The right to file a defamation suit was reserved.
19.

It was submitted that the respondents never violated the provisions of the RE(R&D)

Act and rules.

Page 8 of 21

---

Therefore, it was prayed that the Hon'ble authority direct the society and its members

to clear the due amount of Rs. 2,18,80,840/- and dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.
D. Rejoinder filed by the Complainants
21.

It was respectfully submitted by the Complainant, highlighting certain important points

relevant to the facts of the case.
a. It was submitted that the Occupancy Certificate (OC) was issued on 15th March 2022 by
the GHMC, a copy of which was duly submitted earlier.
b. It was submitted that the Respondent last visited the premises (Ketrish Landmark) on 25th
December 2022 and had thereafter never cared to visit for any discussion or issue
resolution despite several requests.
c. It was submitted that the Complainants Association, M/s. Ketrish Landmark Flat Owners
Mutually Aided Cooperative Maintenance Society, was registered on 1st November 2022
under the Mutually Aided Co-Operative Societies Act 1995.
d. It was submitted that under the same Act, the first society elections were held on 11th
December 2022, and 9 Directors were elected.
e. Reference was made to Section 14(3) of the RERA Act, stating that builders are legally
bound to rectify any structural defects for up to 5 years, citing a Deccan Chronicle
newspaper article dated 10th February 2025.
f. Reference was made to a recent ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No.
3343 of 2020, dated 9th February 2023), stating that flat owners do not forfeit their right
to ask for and get promised amenities even after occupying the flat.
g. It was submitted that the Respondent had issued a No Due Certificate (NDC) to all
respective flat owners at the time of Vehicle Parking allotment on 25th December 2022
(or later for those who collected it subsequently), implying no outstanding financial dues
from the flat owners to the builder.
h. It was submitted that the Respondent was currently undertaking two projects (Ketrish
Pride and Ketrish Pratistha) and their RERA applications allegedly mentioned no prior
experience, which was contended as false and misleading.

Page 9 of 21

---

Regarding the Respondent's claim of outstanding dues amounting to Rs. 2,18,80,840/-

it was submitted that this was totally false, absolutely incorrect, and baseless. It was asserted
that all flat owners had made full payment, evidenced by the No Due Certificates issued by the
Respondent's office. It was reiterated that, as per RERA laws and Court rulings, the Respondent
was bound to provide pending amenities and fix structural defects for 5 years, even after
occupation.
23.

It was humbly submitted that the Complainants were only asking for the

pending/incomplete amenities and the fixing of structural issues/defects. Providing Municipal
(Drinking) water was identified as a pending facility.
24.

It was respectfully submitted that the Complainant also welcomed an inspection by

registered, qualified, and competent authorities appointed by RERA, which would reveal the
pending amenities and structural issues mentioned.
25.

Concerning the drinking water connection, it was humbly submitted that taking an

official connection in the name of another person/builder was incorrect. It was contended that
the payment receipt filed by the Respondent did not pertain to the Complainants' building and
was filed only to mislead the Authority. It was questioned why the Respondent needed to
bargain with another builder (Nookala Mahender Reddy) for the connection. It was asserted
that the Respondent had collected the required amount from buyers for this provision and was
legally bound to complete this work in coordination with government departments. Denial of
clean drinking water was stated as a violation of fundamental rights.
26.

Regarding the Sewage Treatment Plant (STP), it was humbly submitted that some

equipment was installed only recently, after the RERA case was filed. An inspection by a
RERA-appointed agency was welcomed. Several demands regarding the STP were listed:
(i)

demonstration of the system's working condition for 60 days as per guidelines;

(ii)

a detailed technical diagram;

(iii)

GHMC inspection and approval regarding machinery and capacity (130 KLD);

(iv)

a list of machinery, vendors, purchase receipts, and warranties;

Page 10 of 21

---

addressing safety concerns about equipment placement near a car parking space
instead of a separate room;

(vi)

expressing doubt about the sufficiency and correctness of the allotted space;

(vii)

compliance with TSPCB CFE guidelines (separate energy meters, 130 KLD
capacity, closed circuit operation).

It was stated that the full flat payment included the provision for STP and drainage, and no
extra amount was liable. The Respondent's claim that the Association was avoiding STP
delivery due to maintenance costs was stated as incorrect, citing the Minutes of Meeting dated
15th August 2021 as proof of early requests and asserting the Association's readiness to bear
costs for compliance.
27.

In reply to the point concerning the Supermarket area's structural quality, reference was

made to the already submitted report by Mr. Srinivasa Babu, Chartered Engineer, certifying a
deviation. It was explained that maintenance charges were collected quarterly from all flats,
including the Respondent's claimed supermarket space, at Rs 2.40/- per sq ft, using systemgenerated bills.
28.

Concerning water seepages between expansion joints and terrace cracks/potholes, it

was submitted that these issues had been occurring for years and were seen personally by the
Respondent. The fixing of trays was deemed not the right solution, and it was stated the
Respondent had again committed to fixing the expansion joint seepage. It was submitted that
cracks/potholes on the terrace were discovered over the last couple of years, with some
residents complaining of roof seepage, and WhatsApp content showing prior intimation to the
Respondent was attached. It was argued that such issues naturally appear after usage, the
builder was responsible for 5 years, and questioned if GHMC validated against future seepage
when issuing the OC.
29.

Regarding pending internal flat works, it was stated that while a drive was conducted

by the builder's team, no checklist was submitted to the Association, nor was the Association
aware of extra commitments. The request was simply for the Respondent to complete the works
as committed to individual owners.
30.

Concerning Electrical change-over switches, it was submitted as true that installation

was pending in some flats, and only these were mentioned. Appointment of a technical person

Page 11 of 21

---

Regarding the Fire Safety System, it was submitted that it was not completely installed,

not in working condition, and no demo was ever shown. Serious safety concerns were
expressed, and technical verification by RERA was welcomed. It was questioned whether the
NOC certificate clearly mentioned installation in residential blocks versus the clubhouse, and
the NOC's 5-year renewal requirement by the builder was noted.
32.

Concerning cellar electrical cables, it was respectfully submitted that some cables and

trays were still not properly fitted and were low in height, an issue reported multiple times with
photos. Technical verification by RERA was welcomed.
33.

Regarding plastering and painting, it was submitted that the second coat was not done

in the entire building. It was stated that the owners' committee had recently completed painting
in a few places, and bills were submitted. Technical verification by RERA was welcomed.
34.

Concerning water leakages in Lift head rooms, it was submitted that leakages occurred

during the rainy season. It was stated that the doors and windows provided by the Respondent
were not properly designed to stop water flow, and the Lift technician had warned of equipment
damage. It was stated that the committee had done repairs due to the urgency.
35.

Regarding complete building cleanup and the claim for unpaid dues of Rs. 7,50,000/-,

it was humbly submitted that the committed cleanup was never done. The claim for dues was
stated as entirely wrong, citing the NDCs issued to all flat owners. It was asserted that flat
owners had regularly paid maintenance, electricity charges for internal works, and monthly
electricity bills to the Respondent, and supporting copies were submitted.
36.

Concerning the Common meter Name and Category change, it was submitted that the

Respondent was supposed to do this. The Association incurred higher bills due to the
commercial category. It was stated the Association was not told about any security deposit and
had to pay the required fee to get the category changed as the Respondent was unwilling.
37.

Regarding the claim for Clubhouse rent amount, it was submitted that during that

period, the Respondent was collecting maintenance, electricity charges, and guest house rents.
The Complainant had only asked for the rent amount (approximate, as actuals weren't shared).
It was stated the Respondent initially agreed to transfer the amount but later declined.

Page 12 of 21

---

Concerning original documents and the claim for extra work, it was humbly submitted

that while bills/warranties for Gym, sports, DG, and property documents were given, those for
doors and sanitary fittings were never provided, despite claims of a 100-year door warranty.
Door issues had been faced, and failure to submit original documents was termed a serious
offence. The Association had no idea about any extra work, nor did owners agree to this claim.
The NDCs were cited as proof of no dues. The Respondent's claim was described as an attempt
to mislead.
39.

In reply to points about parking flooring quality, it was humbly submitted that the law

holds the builder responsible for repairs for up to 5 years. It was stated that the parking flooring
was indeed damaged, with more expected soon, indicating poor quality. It was claimed the
Respondent's team had seen the issue. Technical verification by RERA was welcomed. It was
stated the Complainant never asked for extra amenities, tiles, doors etc., and the amount paid
included all committed items like Drinking water and STP. The Respondent's claims for unpaid
amounts (Rs 2.18 Cr and Rs 7.5L) were stated as baseless, with no prior communication
received, and contradicted by the NDCs. These claims were termed an afterthought post-RERA
filing. It was submitted that RERA was approached only after discussions proved futile.
Delivery of committed facilities was requested. The rest of the counter affidavit averments
were denied as incorrect, untrue, and baseless.
40.

It was reiterated that the unavailability of Drinking Water, absence of a proper STP,

and Water Seepages posed significant risks. In view of the facts, the Complainant prayed that
the Hon'ble Authority direct the Respondents to provide the Drinking water connection, STP
with a 5-year warranty, rectify all other defects, award costs, and grant any other relief deemed
fit.
E. Points to be Determined
41.

After considering the facts stated and submissions made by both the parties, the

following question rises before this Authority:
I. Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief sought? If so, to what extent?
F. Observations of the Authority:
42.

Upon perusal of the facts stated, documents produced, submissions and arguments

made by both the parties, this Authority makes the following observations:

Page 13 of 21

---

The present matter pertains to the claims raised by the Complainant Association seeking

directions for the completion of pending developmental works in the project, provision of
drinking water connection to the apartments in the building, and compensation on account of
financial loss and emotional distress allegedly suffered by the allottees. The Authority has
carefully examined the contents of the complaint, the reply affidavit filed by the Respondents,
the rejoinder, and all documents placed on record by both parties in support of their respective
contentions.
44.

It has been submitted by the Complainant Association that the Respondents failed to

complete the project, leaving it with critical deficiencies. The primary allegations included the
lack of essential services like municipal drinking water and a mandatory Sewage Treatment
Plant (STP). The Complainant also cited widespread structural defects, supported by
photographic evidence, such as an encroached emergency exit, major water seepages, and
significant cracks. Further grievances pointed to numerous incomplete finishing works both
inside the flats and in common areas, alongside key administrative and financial lapses,
including the failure to transfer the common electricity meter and hand over original building
documents and warranties. This Authority shall address the grievances, starting with the major
ones, the municipal water connection and the STP.
45.

In regard to the provision of municipal water connection, the Complainant Association

contended that the Respondents failed to provide the municipal water connection to the
individual flats. It was asserted that the responsibility to provide this connection rested solely
with the Respondent-developer, who had already collected the requisite charges for the same
from the allottees as part of the sale consideration.
46.

The Complainant further submitted that following a direction from the Authority, a joint

meeting was held on 28.06.2025, wherein the issue was brought to discussion yet remained
unresolved. The Complainant stated that the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply &
Sewerage Board (HMWSSB) had assessed a demand of ₹1,24,74,140 for laying the pipeline
to the project, which the Respondent refused to commit to paying. Instead, the Respondent
allegedly suggested waiting for the pipeline to be laid under public funds. The Complainant
argued that this was a bounded duty of the Respondent and that its absence violated basic living
standards.
47.

Contending the claim of the Complainant, the Respondents submitted that the failure to

provide a municipal water connection was attributable to the Complainant Association itself.
Page 14 of 21

---

However, in the given context, this Authority finds it pertinent to refer to Section

11(4)(a) of the RE (R&D) Act, 2016 which reads as follows:
The promoter shall— (a) be responsible for all obligations, responsibilities and
functions under the provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations made
thereunder or to the allottees as per the agreement for sale, or to the association of
allottees, as the case may be, till the conveyance of all the apartments, plots or
buildings, as the case may be, to the allottees, or the common areas to the
association of allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be.
49.

This statutory mandate establishes that the Respondent’s responsibilities are governed

by the terms stipulated in the agreement for sale. An examination of the documentary evidence
on record, specifically a Sale Deed dated 13.12.2019 executed between Respondent No. 1 and
Mr. Kiran Kumar Reddy Bondugala (an allottee in the project), brings the Respondent’s
obligation as to the project into light.
50.

Paragraph 19 of the said Sale Deed, reads as follows:
“The common service like stair-case, drainage, Municipal water facility, electrical
installation, corridors, generator, Transformer, bore connection with Motor are to
be provided by the Vendor/Developer.”

51.

Thus, the above paragraph unequivocally stipulates that the Municipal Water facility is

to be provided by the ‘Vendor/Developer’. This clause represents a clear and binding
contractual commitment. When read in conjunction with the overarching duty under Section
11(4)(a) of the RE(R&D) Act,2016 it becomes evident that the Respondent is legally and
contractually bound to provide this essential infrastructure. The Respondent is therefore
directed to strictly adhere to the Sale Deed and fulfil all obligations enumerated in it, and shall
provide the municipal water connection at their own cost.
52.

Now, moving further to the issue of the Sewage Treatment Plant, the Complainant

Association submitted that the Respondent failed to install the mandatory STP as per the
sanctioned plan. They asserted that the responsibility to provide a fully functional STP rested
solely with the Respondent, who had already collected the necessary charges from the allottees.
Page 15 of 21

---

Furthermore, the Complainant stated that the Respondent insisted on an immediate

handover of the STP without first demonstrating its proper operation, a proposal the
Association refused. They vehemently denied the Respondent’s allegation that they were
deliberately avoiding the STP’s operation to evade running costs, and affirmed their willingness
to bear all legitimate monthly expenses once a compliant and functional plant is handed over.
54.

In rebuttal, the Respondents contended that the STP had been fully installed. They

further claimed to have spent an additional ₹20 lakhs on laying extra drainage pipes for the
project.
55.

The Respondents countered that it was the Complainant Association that was

deliberately not operating the fully installed STP in order to avoid its monthly running cost,
which they estimated to be ₹1.5 lakhs. The Respondents stated that they had submitted evidence
of communication to support this specific claim.
56.

It is noted that the Complainant Association has not disputed the existence of the

installed STP but has primarily contended that the same is not presently functional.
57.

Having regard to the above, this Authority observes that the statutory obligation of the

Promoter under the Act extends to the provision and installation of essential amenities and
services as committed in the sanctioned plans and agreements. Once the STP has been installed
and formally handed over to the Association upon the issuance of the Occupancy Certificate
and completion of the project, the responsibility for its day-to-day operation, maintenance, and
functionality shifts to the Association of Allottees.
58.

Therefore, as the Respondent has already installed and handed over the STP, the

Authority holds that it is incumbent upon the Complainant Association to ensure that the said
facility is made operational and maintained in a functional condition. However, the Respondent
shall extend technical support, if required, for initial operational guidance or rectification of
any genuine installation-related defects, within the statutory defect-liability period of five years
as envisaged under Section 14(3) of the RE(R&D) Act.
59.

With respect to the issue of structural defects such as water seepage arising from the

expansion joints between the three floors, potholes and cracks on the terrace and clubhouse
floors, etc., as raised by the Complainant Association, this Authority has carefully examined
the pleadings, documents, and materials placed on record. The Complainant has alleged that
such deficiencies indicate lapses in structural stability and workmanship, resulting in recurring
Page 16 of 21

---

Upon consideration, this Authority notes that Section 14(3) of the Real Estate

(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 imposes a continuing statutory obligation upon the
promoter to rectify any structural defects or defects in workmanship, quality, or provision of
services that are brought to their notice by the allottee or the association of allottees within a
period of five years from the date of handing over possession. In the present case, since the
Occupancy Certificate was obtained on 15.03.2022, any such defects reported within five years
thereof squarely fall within the ambit of Section 14(3) of the RE(R&D) Act. This provision is
a salutary measure aimed at safeguarding allottees against latent construction deficiencies and
ensuring the long-term structural soundness and habitability of the building.
61.

Consequently, even though the Respondent has denied the existence of such defects,

the statutory liability to rectify any structural deficiencies that may be established during the
defect liability period continues to rest with the promoter. It is therefore incumbent upon the
Respondent to duly attend to and rectify, at their own cost, any legitimate structural issues such
as defects in expansion joints or seepage through structural elements, within thirty (30) days of
such defects being brought to their notice. However, with regard to minor issues such as
potholes, cracks due to surface wear, and repainting requirements that have arisen after three
years of occupation, the same are attributable to ordinary wear and tear associated with regular
usage and maintenance. The Association cannot, at this stage, seek rectification of such nonstructural issues under the scope of Section 14(3). Nevertheless, the Respondent is directed to
inspect and, if necessary, carry out rectification of structural defects raised by the
Complainants, if any, affecting the integrity of the building.
62.

With respect to the allegations concerning pending internal works within individual

flats, such as non-installation of certain fittings, fixtures, or minor finishing works, this
Authority observes that such issues pertain to the condition of the respective units at the time
of taking possession. The individual allottees are required to inspect and verify the flat prior to

Page 17 of 21

---

Hence, after a considerable lapse of time following possession and occupation, it is not

open to the allottees to raise grievances relating to minor internal works or finishing
deficiencies, as these fall within the domain of individual due diligence at the time of handover.
Accordingly, the claims regarding alleged incomplete or pending internal works are not
sustainable at this stage and are therefore dismissed.
64.

Moving further, with respect to the allegation that the electrical cables in the cellar were

not properly installed in cable trays or that the trays were fixed at a low height, this Authority
observes that such matters pertain to construction quality and safety standards which ought to
have been verified by the individual allottees or the Association at the time of taking
possession.
65.

It is also noted that the Occupancy Certificate (OC) for the project was issued by the

competent authority on 15 March 2022, subsequent to which possession was taken by the flat
owners and the Association. The Complainants have submitted an independent inspection
report prepared by a third-party valuer; however, as the said inspection was conducted
unilaterally without notice to or participation of the Respondents, this Authority finds that the
report cannot be relied upon as conclusive evidence of the alleged defects.
66.

Considering that more than three years have elapsed since possession and no such

grievances were raised during or immediately after handover, these issues now fall within the
realm of post-occupancy maintenance and cannot be entertained at this stage. Accordingly, this
claim does not merit further consideration.
67.

With respect to the allegation that the Fire Safety System has been only partially

installed and is not in conformity with prescribed safety standards, this Authority observes that
the Respondents have placed on record a copy of the No Objection Certificate (NOC) issued
by the Telangana State Disaster Response and Fire Services Department dated 09.03.2022,
which confirms compliance with the fire safety requirements as verified by the competent
authority at the time of inspection.
68.

Once such certification has been duly issued by the concerned department, this

Authority cannot sit in appeal over the technical findings of that specialised authority. If the
Complainant Association still entertains apprehensions or identifies any deficiencies in the
Page 18 of 21

---

Accordingly, this Authority finds no reason to issue further directions on these aspects,

except to observe that the Association may undertake such maintenance works periodically in
the ordinary course of management.
70.

With respect to the grievance regarding the change of name and category of the

common electricity meter, this Authority notes that the Respondents have already submitted on
record that the name of the common electricity meter has been changed to that of the
Complainant Association. No contrary evidence has been produced by the Complainant to
disprove the same. Accordingly, this issue stands resolved, and no further directions are
required on this aspect.
71.

With respect to the Complainant’s claim regarding the alleged pending payment of

₹1,50,000/- towards the use of the clubhouse and guest facilities, this Authority is of the
considered view that such a claim pertains to a purely mutual understanding between the parties
and does not arise out of any violation of the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016. Accordingly, this Authority is not the appropriate forum to adjudicate
upon such monetary claims. The Complainant is at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies
before a competent forum, if so advised.
72.

With respect to the allegation that the Respondents have not handed over the original

building documents and warranty copies for equipment, fittings, and installations, this
Authority observes that such a responsibility squarely falls upon the promoter under the
provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Section 17(2) of the
Act clearly stipulates as follows:
“After obtaining the occupancy certificate and handing over physical possession to the
allottees in terms of sub-section (1), it shall be the responsibility of the promoter to
handover the necessary documents and plans, including common areas, to the association
of the allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be, as per the local laws:
Provided that, in the absence of any local law, the promoter shall handover the necessary
documents and plans, including common areas, to the association of the allottees or the
competent authority, as the case may be, within thirty days after obtaining the completion
certificate.”

Page 19 of 21

---

In light of the above statutory mandate, this Authority holds that it is the obligation of

the Respondents to hand over all requisite project-related documents, including building plans,
approvals, layout drawings, equipment manuals, warranty certificates, and other relevant
records pertaining to the common areas and amenities, to the Association of Allottees. This
ensures transparency, accountability, and the association’s ability to maintain and manage the
property effectively after possession.
74.

Accordingly, the Respondents are directed to hand over all such necessary documents

and records relating to the project to the Association of Allottees, if not already done, within a
period of 15 days from the date of this Order.
75.

With regard to the Respondents’ contention that an amount of ₹2,18,80,840/- (Rupees

Two Crores Eighteen Lakhs Eighty Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty only) and ₹7,50,000/(Rupees Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) is allegedly outstanding from the flat owners and
the Complainant Association, this Authority finds no substantiation for such a claim on record.
The Respondents have not produced any documentary evidence such as demand notices,
invoices, correspondence, or acknowledgment from the allottees to establish that such amounts
were indeed due or demanded within a reasonable time.
76.

On the contrary, the Complainant Association has placed on record copies of No Dues

Certificates (NDCs) issued by the Respondents to individual allottees at the time of parking
allotment and possession. The issuance of such NDCs clearly indicates that the Respondents
had acknowledged full and final settlement of all financial obligations by the respective
allottees at that stage. Once such certificates are issued, the Respondents cannot subsequently
claim additional amounts purportedly towards “extra work” or “enhanced material cost,” as
doing so would defeat the finality and would be contrary to the representations already made
to the allottees.
G. Directions of the Authority
77.

This Authority, by virtue of the powers vested under Sections 37 & 38 of the RE(R&D)

Act, 2016, proceeds to issue the following directions:
i.

The Respondents are directed to ensure the provision of Municipal (drinking) water
connection to the project “Ketrish Landmark Apartments” in compliance with
Paragraph 19 of the Sale Deed and with Section 11(4)(a) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
The Respondents shall take all necessary steps within 10 days from the date of this
Page 20 of 21

---

The Respondent–promoter is directed to, within a period of forty-five (45) days from
the date of this order, undertake and complete rectification, at their own cost, of the
structural defects, if any, alleged by the Complainant Association in compliance with
Section 14(3) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

iii.

The Respondents are hereby directed to hand over all pending original warranty
documents pertaining to common area equipment and installations to the Complainant
Association within 15 days from the date of this order.

iv.

Failure to comply with the above direction shall attract proceedings under Section 63
of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.

78.

The complaint at hand is disposed of accordingly. 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 21 of 21

---