Order Complaint No. 336 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Date: 4th February, 2026
Quorum:

Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.), Hon’ble Chairperson
Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Hon’ble Member
Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu, Hon’ble Member
COMPLAINT NO. 336/2025/TGRERA

Daram Sai Varun Reddy and Shruthi Burgapally
(Resident of H 201, Aparna Sarovar Zenith, Nallagandla, Hyderabad, Telangana, India, 500019.)

…Complainants
Versus
M/s Anuhar Homes Pvt. Ltd. Represented by Its Promoter, Mr. Harshavardhana Reddy
Yerrapureddy.
(Office located at H.No. 8-2-293/82/225/A, Sri Venkateswara Nilayam 3rd Floor, Beside Andhra Bank,
Road Number 18, Jawahar Colony, Venkateshwara Hills, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana 500033)

…Respondent
The present matters filed by the Complainants detailed hereinabove came up for hearing
before this Authority in the presence of Counsel of the Complainants and the representative of
the Respondent. Upon hearing their submissions, this Authority proceeded to pass the
following ORDER:
2.

The present Complaint has been filed by the Complainants under Section 31 of the Real

Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 read with Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”)
seeking appropriate similar relief(s) against the Respondent.
A. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the Complainants, are as follows:
3.

It was submitted that the Complainants booked Unit No. 1501 in Block A of the

Respondent's project, "Anuhar Towers," bearing RERA Registration No. P02400002613, on
28.01.2022. Subsequently, an Agreement of Sale was executed between the parties on
12.02.2022. It was further submitted that out of a total sale consideration of ₹1,18,12,900/-, the
Complainants had paid a sum of ₹1,13,87,637/-.

Page 1 of 9

---

The Complainants stated that as per the terms of the agreement, the Respondent had

committed to hand over possession of the unit by 31.12.2023. This date was extendable by a
grace period of one year, making the final committed date for possession 31.12.2024. However,
it was contended that possession has not been delivered, despite the substantial payment made
by the Complainants.
5.

It was alleged that the Respondent engaged in several irregular practices, which

included, but were not limited to, non-transparent communication, providing misleading
updates regarding the project's status, and making deviations from the approved plans. The
Complainants contended that these actions constitute a violation of the terms of the Agreement
of Sale and the provisions of the RERA Act, 2016.
6.

The Complainants submitted that the actions and inactions of the Respondent have

caused them severe mental agony and financial hardship, which has compelled them to
approach this Authority seeking appropriate redressal.
B. Reliefs sought
7.

Accordingly, the Complainants sought the following reliefs:
i.

Direct the Respondent to refund the entire amount of ₹1,13,87,637/- paid by the
Complainants along with applicable interest at the rate prescribed under Section 18(1)
of the RERA Act, 2016.

ii.

Award compensation to the Complainants for mental agony, financial hardship, and
opportunity loss suffered due to the delay in possession and irregular practices by the
Respondent.

iii.

Impose appropriate penalties on the Respondent for non-compliance with RERA
obligations and violation of the terms of the Agreement of Sale.

C. Reply filed by the Respondents.
8.

At the outset, sincere regret was expressed for the inconvenience caused to the allottees

by the delay in the completion of the project. It was submitted that the primary factors
responsible for the delay were persistent labour shortages following the post-pandemic
environment, during which a significant number of skilled workers had left for their native
states, notably Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. It was contended that this, combined with the

Page 2 of 9

---

Furthermore, it was submitted that the process of obtaining Transferable Development

Rights (TDR) permissions from the competent authorities had taken longer than initially
anticipated. The procedural and coordination requirements involved had led to interruptions in
the construction schedule and, in some instances, had necessitated structural modifications. It
was stated that these circumstances were entirely beyond the Respondent's reasonable control
and had substantially affected the timely progress of the project.
10.

An assurance was given to the Hon'ble Authority and the allottees that these major

impediments had now been resolved and that construction activities were currently in their
concluding phase. A commitment was made to start the handover process from 10th August
2025, with the anticipation that the entire block would be ready for handover by the end of
September 2025.
11.

In view of the above, it was most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Authority grant

an extension of time until the end of September 2025 to enable the Respondent to complete all
remaining works and hand over the apartments in full compliance with all statutory and
contractual obligations. A further undertaking was given to keep both the Hon'ble Authority
and the Allottees updated about the progress and to make every effort to adhere strictly to the
revised timeline.
12.

A request was once again made to the Hon'ble Authority to consider the genuine

constraints and grant the requested extension until the end of September 2025 for completion
and handover of possession, which would also enable the Respondent to fulfil all obligations
under the Telangana RERA Act and the agreements entered into with the allottees.
D. Reply submitted by the Respondents on 13.11.2025
13.

It was submitted that the complainants had availed a housing loan from HDFC bank for

the purchase of the said flat. It was stated that since September 2025, the Respondent had been
regularly sending emails to the complainants, requesting them to initiate the cancellation
process with their bank and to provide a written cancellation letter. However, it was noted that
the complainants had not yet approached their bank to initiate such cancellation.
14.

Further, it was submitted that the concerned bank had communicated that the said flat

was under loan and stood as security for the bank. Hence, it was contended that the bank's
Page 3 of 9

---

Reference was made to the terms and conditions of the Agreement of Sale, specifically

Clause 7.5 regarding cancellation by the allottee. It was submitted that a deduction of 10% of
the Agreement Value along with applicable GST applied in case of cancellation initiated by the
allottee. It was further stated that the balance refund amount was to be paid within 90 days
from the date of cancellation or after the resale of the said flat, whichever occurred later.
16.

It was submitted that in the present case, since the cancellation had been initiated by

the complainants, the refund and related procedures were to be governed strictly in accordance
with the contractual terms agreed between both parties. It was further submitted that there had
been no default, negligence, or breach on the part of the Respondent, and that the delay in
initiating the refund was solely due to the pending bank formalities required for legal
compliance.
17.

An assurance was given to the Hon'ble Authority that the Respondent was taking all

necessary steps to expedite the process and remained committed to fulfilling all obligations
lawfully and in good faith.
18.

In light of the above facts and circumstances, it was humbly requested that the Hon'ble

Authority kindly consider the submission and grant reasonable time to process the refund
amount, in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble Authority.
E. Observations of the Authority
I. Whether the delay attributed to y54the Covid-19 pandemic can be taken as a valid shield
by the Respondent in the present case?
19.

The Complainants have sought relief primarily on the ground of delay in handing over

possession of the subject unit. It is the specific case of the Complainants that the Agreement of
Sale dated 12.02.2022 unequivocally stipulated that possession of Unit No. 1501, Block A,
would be delivered on or before 31.12.2023, with a grace period of one year, thereby extending
the outer limit for delivery of possession up to 31.12.2024 (as mentioned under Clause 7.1 of
the Agreement of Sale). Admittedly, even after expiry of the said grace period, the Respondent
has failed to hand over possession of the subject unit.

Page 4 of 9

---

It is not in dispute that the Complainants have paid a substantial portion of the sale

consideration, amounting to ₹1,13,87,637/- out of the total agreed consideration of
₹1,18,12,900/-. Despite receipt of almost the entire sale consideration, possession has not been
delivered till date.
21.

The Respondent has sought to justify the delay by attributing it to post-pandemic labour

shortages and delays in obtaining Transferable Development Rights (TDR) permissions,
contending that these circumstances were beyond its control and were a continuation of the
disruptions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. In essence, the Respondent seeks to invoke
Covid-19 related circumstances as a shield to escape liability for the admitted delay in
possession.
22.

This Authority finds no merit in the said contention. The Agreement of Sale in the

present case was executed on 12.02.2022, i.e., well after the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic
and after the major phases of lockdown and disruption had already occurred. At the time of
executing the Agreement of Sale, the Respondent was fully aware of the prevailing market
conditions, labour dynamics, regulatory environment, and the residual effects, if any, of the
pandemic. Despite such knowledge, the Respondent consciously undertook a specific
contractual obligation to deliver possession by 31.12.2023, with a further grace period
extending up to 31.12.2024.
23.

Having voluntarily committed to a definite timeline with full awareness of the

surrounding circumstances, the Respondent cannot now retrospectively rely on Covid-19
related disruptions or allied factors to justify its failure to honour the contractual and statutory
obligations.
24.

It is a settled principle that once a promoter chooses to register a project under the Real

Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and enters into binding agreements with
allottees, the promoter does so with full knowledge of the attendant risks, constraints, and
challenges. The timelines declared in the Agreement of Sale are required to be realistic and
achievable, and cannot be treated as tentative or illusory promises.
25.

The Respondent, being a seasoned developer, cannot feign surprise or helplessness by

citing labour shortages or administrative delays after having contractually bound itself to
deliver possession within a stipulated timeframe. Such defences, if accepted, would defeat the
very object of the RE(R&D) Act, which seeks to ensure certainty, accountability, and timely
delivery of real estate projects.
Page 5 of 9

---

Accordingly, this Authority holds that the plea of Covid-19 and allied post-pandemic

issues as a force majeure defence in the present case is wholly untenable. The Respondent,
having executed the Agreement of Sale in February 2022 with clear possession timelines,
cannot be permitted to rely on generalised pandemic-related explanations to justify a delay
extending well beyond the agreed and grace periods. The said defence is therefore rejected.
ii. Whether the Complainants are entitled to the refund of the amount paid by them?
27.

Having held that the Respondent has failed to hand over possession of the subject unit

within the contractually agreed timeline, inclusive of the grace period, this Authority now
proceeds to examine the entitlement of the Complainants to refund under Section 18 of the
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
28.

It is an admitted position that the Agreement of Sale dated 12.02.2022 stipulated

delivery of possession by 31.12.2023, extendable by a grace period of one year up to
31.12.2024. It is further undisputed that possession has not been handed over even after expiry
of the said grace period. The Complainants have, therefore, exercised their statutory right to
withdraw from the project and seek refund of the amounts paid.
29.

As borne out from the record, the Complainants have paid a sum of ₹1,13,87,637/- out

of the total sale consideration of ₹1,18,12,900/-, diligently and without default. Despite receipt
of such a substantial amount, the Respondent has failed to perform its reciprocal obligation of
delivering possession within the agreed timeframe.
30.

At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to Clause 9 of the Agreement of Sale executed

between the parties, which governs the events of default and the consequences flowing
therefrom. It reads as follows:
9.1 Subject to the Force Majeure clause, the Promoter shall be considered under
a condition of Default, in the following events:
i. Promoter fails to provide ready to move in possession of the Apartment to the
Allottee within the time period specified in para 7.1 or fails to complete the
project within the stipulated time disclosed at the time of registration of the
project with the Authority. For the purpose of this para, 'ready to move in
possession' shall mean that the apartment shall be in a habitable condition which
is complete in all respects including the provision of all specifications, amenities
and facilities, as agreed to between the parties, and for which occupation
certificate and completion certificate, as the case may be, has been issued by the
competent authority;

Page 6 of 9

---

In the present case, as already discussed hereinabove, the Respondent has admittedly

breached the contractual possession timeline as provided by them, thereby committing a clear
default within the meaning of Clause 9 of the Agreement of Sale. Consequently, the contractual
stipulations themselves entitle the Complainants to seek refund of the entire amount paid, along
with applicable interest. The Respondent is therefore squarely liable to refund the monies
received from the Complainants with interest as prescribed under law.
32.

Independently of the contractual framework, the statutory mandate under Section 18 of

the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 is equally clear and unambiguous regarding the right of the allottee to
withdraw from the project and receive the amount he has paid in respect to his apartment when
there is default on the part of the Promoter. It reads as follows:
(1) 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:
Page 7 of 9

---

The scope and nature of this right has been authoritatively settled by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 3581-359 of 2022, Civil Appeal Diary No. 9796/2019,
M/s Imperia Structures Limited v. 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 unqualified, and if availed, the deposited money must be
refunded with interest as prescribed. The proviso to Section 18(1) contemplates
that if the allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, they are entitled
to interest for every month of delay until possession is handed over. The allottee
may proceed under Section 18(1) or the proviso thereto."
34.

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

Developers Private Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh & 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 9 of 10 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."
35.

In view of the contractual provisions governing promoter default, coupled with the

settled legal position under Section 18 of the RE(R&D) Act as elucidated by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, this Authority holds that the Complainants are entitled to refund of the entire
amount paid by them along with applicable interest, having unequivocally exercised their
statutory right to withdraw from the project under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation
and Development) Act, 2016.

Page 8 of 9

---

Therefore, this Authority holds that the Complainants are entitled to refund of the

amount of ₹1,13,87,637/- along with interest, i.e., current SBI MCLR + 2%, as prescribed
under Rule 15 of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017
calculated individually on each instalment from the date of payment thereof until the date of
actual refund.
37.

As regards compensation for mental agony and other consequential losses, the same

falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Officer under Section 71 of the
RE(R&D) Act, and the Complainants are at liberty to avail such remedy separately, in
accordance with law.
G. Directions of the Authority
38.

In light of the findings recorded above and in exercise of the powers conferred under

Sections 37 and 38 of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016, this Authority
issues the following directions:
i.

The Respondent is hereby directed to refund an amount of ₹1,13,87,637/- (Rupees One
Crore Thirteen Lakhs Eighty-Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty-Seven only)
received from the Complainants, along with interest as prescribed under Rule 15 of the
Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017.

ii.

The applicable rate of interest shall be the current State Bank of India Marginal Cost of
Lending Rate (8.70 %) plus two percent (2%), which is 10.70% per annum. The interest
shall be calculated individually on each instalment/payment from the respective date of
payment till the date of actual refund.

iii.

The entire refund amount, together with accrued interest, shall be paid within a period
of sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of this Order.

iv.

Failing to comply with the above-said direction by the Respondent shall attract penal
action in accordance with Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.

39.

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

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

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

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

Page 9 of 9

---