Order Complaint No. 431 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 431/2025/TG RERA
Dated: 30th 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

Mr. Rohit Madasu,
(VSR Homes, Block-1, Flat No:201,
H.No. 1-5-73/E, Phanigiri Colony,
Kothapet, Rangareddy,
Telangana – 500060)

…Complainant
Versus
M/s. Vasavi Realtor LLP,
(Rep by its Designated Partner, Vijay Kumar Yerram & Kandey Ramesh,
Vasavi Corporate,
H.No.8-2-703/7/1 and 8-2-703/7/1/A,
4th Floor, Vasavi Corporate Building, Amrutha Valley Apartments,
Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500034)

…Respondent
The present matter file by the Complainant herein came up for hearing on
11.07.2025 before this Authority in presence of Complainant in person and Respondents
Counsels Sri D Madhav Rao and M.K.Joy Raj; upon pursuing the material on record and on
hearing arguments of the both the parties and having stood over for consideration till this
day, the following order is passed:
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”) read with Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “TG RE(R&D) Rules”) seeking appropriate
relief(s) against the Respondents.
A. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the Complainant, are as follows:
3.

It was submitted that the Complainant had booked an apartment on 23rd November

2021 and subsequently entered into an Agreement of Sale with the Respondent, Vasavi
1 of 19

---

It was stated that pursuant to the terms of the original Agreement of Sale, the

stipulated date for the handover of possession of the flat was on or before August 2023. It was
further submitted that the Complainant had made all payments on time as per the demand
letters issued by the Respondent.
5.

It was contended that as of June 2025, possession of the flat had not been delivered,

constituting a delay of twenty-two months past the agreed-upon date. It was alleged that the
Respondent had repeatedly postponed the handover date without providing clear assurances.
6.

It was further submitted that after a meeting in September 2024, the Respondent had

issued a written commitment stating that flats would be handed over for interior works by
14th February 2025. This date was subsequently revised to 7th March 2025, and as per a later
Minutes of Meeting, was further pushed to June 2025. It was stated that as of the end of June
2025, no formal communication regarding the handover had been received from the
Respondent.
7.

It was alleged that there had been minimal progress in construction at the site since

September 2023. The Complainant also submitted that upon communication with other flat
owners, it was understood that the Respondent had provided different possession dates in the
Agreement of Sale documents to different owners within the same tower.
8.

It was submitted that a significant amount of work remained incomplete in the

building. This included the installation of bathroom fixtures, windows, doors, service lifts,
and staircase railings. Electrical and water connections were yet to be done, and both internal
and external painting was pending. It was also stated that common amenities, parking
facilities, and the provisioning of electricity and water services were not completed.
9.

It was further contended that there were concerns regarding the quality of the work.

Additionally, it was stated that the kitchen platform, the cost of which was included in the
sale consideration, was not being installed by the Respondent, and no information regarding
reimbursement for this item had been provided.
B. Reliefs Sought
10.

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following reliefs:
2 of 19

---

To direct the Respondent to pay interest on the total amounts paid by the
Complainant, calculated from the respective dates of each payment until the actual
date of handover, at the rate prescribed under the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016. This is sought as compensation for the significant financial
loss, opportunity cost, and hardship incurred by the Complainant, who has been
simultaneously paying rent and loan EMIs due to the inordinate delay.

ii. To direct the Respondent to refund the amount collected for the kitchen platform, or
alternatively, to pay compensation equivalent to the current market cost for installing
a kitchen platform of a comparable size and quality, as the Respondent has failed to
provide the said amenity despite having charged for it.
C. Counter filed by the Respondent
11.

It was submitted by the Respondent that the complaint was not maintainable either in

law or on facts and was liable to be dismissed. The Respondent contended that the
Complainant had failed to follow the remedies available under the Agreement for Sale for the
resolution of disputes before approaching this Hon’ble Authority. It was further submitted
that no prior legal notice was issued before the filing of the complaint, which rendered the
application defective.
12.

It was submitted that the project, “Lake City-East,” was developed lawfully after the

Respondent obtained rights from the landowners under registered documents, covering a total
land area of 34,704.37 sq. yds. The requisite permissions for land conversion and for the
construction of multi-storied residential apartments were obtained on 07.02.2020. The
project, consisting of multiple towers and a clubhouse, was duly registered with this
Authority vide Registration No. P02500001821 dated 20.03.2020.
13.

It was further submitted that the Complainant was allotted apartment No. E. 030602

on the 6th Floor of Tower 3, admeasuring 1705 sq. ft., and an undivided share of 48 sq. yds. of
land under the Agreement of Sale. The agreement detailed the carpet area, balcony area,
common area, and the undivided share of land. The total sale consideration was Rs.
1,20,06,450/- out of which the Complainant paid Rs. 25,25,000/-.
14.

It was submitted that as per Clause 7 of the Agreement, the Respondent was obligated

to hand over possession of the apartment on or before 31.08.2024, with a grace period of six
months. The said clause explicitly stated that the period of completion would stand extended

3 of 19

---

It was contended that the Complainant had not approached this Hon’ble Authority

with clean hands but with an ulterior motive for unlawful gain, and that there had been a
material suppression of facts. While the existence of the Agreement of Sale was not in
dispute, the Respondent averred that the Complainant made false claims despite being aware
of the contractual terms and circumstances.
16.

The Respondent stated that the project timelines were severely impacted by the

COVID-19 pandemic, which was a force majeure event recognized under law. It was
submitted that following the declaration of a public health emergency in January 2020, a
nationwide lockdown was imposed in India from March 2020. This event led to a mass
migration of the labour force, which was critical to the construction industry in Hyderabad,
thereby causing a significant and unavoidable delay in the project work. All allottees were
kept informed of these developments.
17.

The Respondent further relied on the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo

Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, whereby the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022
was excluded for the purposes of computing limitation across all statutes. It was contended
that this legally recognized the extraordinary circumstances and justified the extension of
timelines for project completion.
18.

In addition to the pandemic, the Respondent submitted that the project was delayed by

other unforeseen factors. It was stated that the project site contained rocky terrain which, due
to its location in a residential vicinity, could not be excavated using explosives. The
consequent need for manual rock-breaking compounded the construction delays.
Furthermore, the project was adversely impacted by third-party disputes, including several
legal proceedings filed against the project, such as RERA Case No. 190/2020, W.P. No.
2694/2021, and W.P. No. 26301/2024, which hindered its smooth progress. These challenges
were communicated to the customers in periodic meetings.
19.

It was contended that any clerical or typographical errors in the Agreement of Sale,

such as an incorrect possession date mentioned in one instance, could not be exploited to
create liability, especially when the magnitude of the project made such a timeline practically
impossible. The Respondent asserted that the project was over 90% complete and in the final
finishing stages. An extension for the project registration had been granted by this Authority
4 of 19

---

With regard to the claims for interest and compensation, the Respondent submitted

that such reliefs were not maintainable in view of the force majeure conditions. It was argued
that the circumstances clearly fell within the definition provided under Section 6 of the Act.
The Respondent maintained that the delay was not due to any deliberate act or default on its
part, and therefore, the Complainant had not established any legal basis for claiming
compensation for mental agony or financial loss.
21.

The Respondent concluded that the complaint was preposterous and without

foundation. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed and the Respondent be allowed to
complete the project and deliver possession to all allottees as per the extended timeline.
D. Rejoinder filed by the Complainant
22.

It was submitted in response to the preliminary objection on maintainability, that the

said objection was not only vague but legally unfounded. The complaint had been filed under
Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which provided an
explicit statutory right to any aggrieved allottee to seek relief. It was stated that the
Agreement of Sale dated 22nd February 2021 clearly stipulated the committed possession
date as 31st August 2023, and as the flat remained undelivered, the complaint was well
within legal bounds.
23.

The contention that the Complainant had not availed methods provided in the

agreement was described as wholly misconceived and devoid of any merit. It was submitted
that the statutory jurisdiction of RERA was not ousted by any arbitration or alternative clause
contained in a private agreement. It was further stated that the Complainant had made
repeated attempts to communicate with the Respondent, but these efforts were met with
consistent avoidance tactics and an endless loop of blame-shifting between internal teams,
which effectively stonewalled the Complainant.
24.

The objection regarding the non-issuance of a legal notice was submitted as being

without merit, as there was no such legal mandate under RERA to issue a prior notice.
25.

It was stated that the Respondent's development rights and the permissions obtained

for construction were not in dispute; the issue lay in the Respondent's failure to deliver
possession on time as per contractual obligations.

5 of 19

---

It was submitted that while the project was registered with RERA, the Respondent

had grossly failed to abide by the obligations that accompanied such registration, particularly
those relating to timely possession and transparency. The Respondent's conduct postregistration showed a blatant disregard for the regulations, and their reply demonstrated a
shocking lack of respect towards the Hon'ble Authority.
27.

It was submitted that the Respondent's emphasis on the booking date was legally

irrelevant. As per the RERA framework, the Agreement of Sale dated 23rd November 2021
was the only binding document, which included the crucial possession commitment of 31st
August 2023. The Complainant had duly paid a sum of ₹1,26,06,513/- towards the
consideration value. It was stated that the balance payment for registration was contractually
due only at the time of handover, and therefore, there was no default whatsoever on the part
of the Complainant. The Complainant, having complied fully, stood entitled to all legal
remedies under Section 18(1) of the RERA Act.
28.

The Respondent's reliance on a RERA extension was described as legally flawed and

misleading. It was submitted that the possession date as agreed between the parties, 31st
August 2023, must prevail for assessing delay, irrespective of any regulatory extensions. The
Respondent's conduct, in now citing a delivery date of February 2026, rendered the contract
meaningless.
29.

The Complainant fully acknowledged the payment of the booking amount of

₹25,25,000/-. However, it was submitted that the Respondent's attempt to divert the
discussion toward specifications was unrelated to the core issue of delay in possession,
especially after receiving 100% of the total sale consideration.
30.

It was submitted that the Respondent had selectively cited clauses from the

Agreement to justify their delay while ignoring their binding obligation. The Respondent had
far exceeded even the six-month grace period. The repeated reference to force majeure was
described as legally untenable and factually inapplicable, as the Agreement of Sale was
executed on 22nd February 2021, well after the nation had emerged from full lockdown. It
was argued that force majeure clauses could not override statutory protections afforded to
allottees under Section 18(1) of the RERA Act.
31.

The Respondent's selective quoting of Clause 7.2 was stated to be entirely misplaced,

as the condition precedent of obtaining an occupancy certificate (OC) had not been met. It

6 of 19

---

The Complainant categorically denied the baseless and defamatory allegations of

acting with an "ulterior motive." It was submitted that the Complainant had made full
disclosure of all material facts, including the Agreement for Sale and proof of payments
totalling ₹1,26,06,513/-, whereas the Respondent had repeatedly failed to meet their own
promised timelines.
33.

While the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic was acknowledged, it was submitted

that the Respondent's reliance on it was misleading, as the Agreement for Sale was executed
on 23rd November 2021, with full knowledge of the ongoing pandemic. The delay from 2023
to 2025 could not be blamed on the pandemic and was nothing more than a convenient
scapegoat.
34.

It was submitted that the legal provisions and extensions cited by the Respondent

related solely to statutory periods of limitation for filing legal proceedings and had no
applicability whatsoever to the contractual obligations of a real estate developer under the
RERA Act.
35.

The attempt to attribute the delay to labour migration was stated as not being

applicable to the facts, as since 2022, no meaningful progress had been made toward
completion. The delay post-structural completion reflected a lack of intent and
mismanagement on the part of the builder. It was also stated that there was no documentary
evidence to support the claim that allottees were formally informed of such delays.
36.

The Respondent's statement regarding "various additional factors" was described as

vague, evasive, and devoid of any factual backing. It was submitted that the claim that
"customers were intimated from time to time" was simply untrue in the Complainant's case.
37.

The response by the Respondent, terming the committed possession date in a formally

executed Agreement of Sale as a product of "clerical and typographical mistakes," was
described as both self-incriminating and legally indefensible. It was submitted that this was a
dishonest afterthought and reflected a complete abdication of responsibility.
38.

The accusation that the Complainant's allegations were factually baseless was

described as an unfounded, derogatory, and blatant diversionary tactic. It was submitted that
the Complainant had provided extensive documentary evidence, while the Respondent's
citation of a RERA registration extension had no bearing on their contractual liability. It was
7 of 19

---

The Complainant challenged the Respondent to produce any formal written

communication that proactively disclosed delays. It was submitted that the pattern of
repeatedly outlining and then dishonouring revised timelines reflected a calculated approach
to deflect pressure, and to now question the reasonableness of pursuing a claim under RERA
was deeply unjust.
40.

The Complainant submitted that the claim for interest was a non-negotiable and

unconditional statutory right under Section 18(1) of the Act. The reliance on force majeure
due to COVID-19 was wholly misplaced as the Agreement was signed on 23rd November
2021. The Respondent's statement regarding compensation was stated to reflect complete
insensitivity to the real and severe consequences faced by the Complainant, which were
clearly laid out in Form M. Specific real-life impacts were cited, including daily travel
burdens for the Complainant's spouse and mother, logistical difficulties for the Complainant,
and the unplanned financial strain of staying as paying guests.
41.

The Complainant strongly objected to the Respondent's claim that delivery was now

scheduled for February 2026. It was asserted that the Complainant had never agreed to any
extension. It was submitted that the Respondent's "unconditional undertaking" did not waive
their legal liability to pay interest for the period of delay already accrued. The claim that the
project was in its "final stages" was contradicted by the visible lack of progress.The response
regarding the Complainant agreeing to the delay was described as another attempt to deflect
responsibility using afterthought excuses. It was stated that the Complainant never agreed to
excuse the delay. The new claim about rocky terrain reflected a lack of due diligence and was
an internal project risk, not force majeure.
42.

The Respondent's statement that the Complainant was not entitled to any relief was

described as a sweeping and baseless denial of liability. It was submitted that the
Respondent's generic claim that the delay was "beyond their control" had been repeatedly
refuted. The Complainant had been patient and fulfilled all financial obligations, and the
relief sought was legally justified.

8 of 19

---

Finally, it was submitted that the Respondent's claim that the complaint was

"preposterous" was baseless and contrary to the record. The Respondent's generic
"undertaking" and claims of a "good name" could not cure the default already committed.
Accordingly, the Complainant respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Authority grant interest
for the delayed period under Section 18(1) and pass any other appropriate directions.
E. Points for Consideration:
44.

Upon a careful perusal of the record and the submissions advanced by both parties,

oral as well as written, this Authority is of the view that the following issues arise for
determination in the present complaint:
1. Whether the present complaint is maintainable before this Authority?
2. Whether the Complainants are entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?
F. Observations of the Authority:
Point 1:
45.

The Respondent has raised an objection as to the maintainability of the present

complaint on the ground that the Complainants failed to first resort to the contractual dispute
resolution mechanism envisaged in the Agreement of Sale, namely an amicable settlement by
mutual discussion, prior to approaching this Authority.
46.

The Authority finds this objection untenable for the following reasons:

47.

The relevant Dispute Resolution clause in the Agreement of Sale is reproduced below

for ready reference:
33. Dispute Resolution clause in the Agreement of sale executed
between the parties, the said clause stated that all or any disputes
arising out ot touching upon or in relation to the terms and conditions
of this Agreement, including the interpretation and validity of the terms
thereof and the respective rights and obligations of the Parties, shall
be settled amicably by mutual discussion, falling which the same shall
be settled through adjudication officer appointed under the Act.
48.

It is clear from the above that the clause only requires the parties to attempt an

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

9 of 19

---

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

respect of any matter which this Authority, the Adjudicating Officer, or the Appellate Tribunal
is empowered to determine. Likewise, Section 88 clarifies that the provisions of the
RE(R&D) Act are in addition to, and not in derogation of, other laws. Thus, the intention of
the legislature is that remedies under this beneficial legislation must remain open to allottees,
irrespective of any private clause for amicable settlement.
50.

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

here), the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble NCDRC have consistently held that such
clauses cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of consumer fora or statutory authorities
constituted under special enactments.
51.

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

Supreme Court held that remedies under special statutes are in addition to, and not in
derogation of, other remedies. For ready reference, the relevant extract is reproduced below:
*“49. Support to the above view is also lent by Section 79 of the recently
enacted Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (for short "the
Real Estate Act"). Section 79 of the said Act reads as follows:‘79. Bar of jurisdiction - No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any
suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which the Authority or the
adjudicating officer or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this
Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other
authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any
power conferred by or under this Act.’
It can thus, be seen that the said provision expressly ousts the jurisdiction of
the Civil Court in respect of any matter which the Real Estate Regulatory
Authority, established under Subsection (1) of Section 20 or the Adjudicating
Officer, appointed under Sub-section (1) of Section 71, or the Real Estate
Appellate Tribunal established under Section 43 of the Real Estate Act, is
empowered to determine. Hence, in view of the binding dictum of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in A. Ayyaswamy (supra), the matters/disputes, which the
Authorities under the Real Estate Act are empowered to decide, are nonarbitrable, notwithstanding an Arbitration Agreement between the parties to
such matters, which, to a large extent, are similar to the disputes falling for
resolution under the Consumer Act.
56. Consequently, we unhesitatingly reject the arguments on behalf of the
Builder and hold that an Arbitration Clause in the afore-stated kind of
Agreements between the Complainants and the Builder cannot
circumscribe the jurisdiction of a Consumer Fora, notwithstanding the
amendments made to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act.”*
10 of 19

---

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

701 of 2015, decided on 13.07.2017), it was held that arbitration clauses in builder-buyer
agreements cannot oust the jurisdiction of consumer fora. The said view was later upheld by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 23512–23513 of 2017. The relevant para
reads:
25. This Court in the series of judgments as noticed above considered the
provisions of Consumer Protection Act, L986 os well as Arbitration Act,
1996 and laid down that complaint under Consumer Protection Act being a
special remedy, despite there being an arbitration agreement the
proceedings before Consumer Forum have to go on and no ercor
committed by Consumer Forum on rejecting the application. There is
reason for not interjecting proceedings under Consumer Protection Act on
the strength an arbitration agreement by Act, 1996. The remedy under
Consumer Protection Act is a remedy provided to a consumer when there is
a defect in any goods or services. The complaint means any allegation in
writing made by a complainant has also been explained in Section 2(c) of
the Act. The remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is confined to
complaint by consumer as defined under the Act for defect or deficiencies
caused by a service provider, the cheap and a quick remedy has been
provided to the consumer which is the object and purpose of the Act as
noticed above."
53.

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

invoking remedies. Such a clause is directory at best, and cannot override or defeat the
statutory right of the Complainant to approach this Authority under the RE(R&D) Act.
Accordingly, this Authority has no hesitation in holding that the Complainant is well within
its rights to approach this forum without being first compelled to pursue an amicable
settlement under the Agreement. The objection of the Respondent as to maintainability is
therefore rejected.
Point No. 2: Delay in Possession
54.

The Complainants have sought relief on the ground that there has been an inordinate

delay in handing over of possession of the subject flat.
55.

It is the case of the Complainants that the Agreement of Sale dated 23.11.2021,

executed between the parties, clearly stipulated that possession of the subject flat would be
handed over by 31.08.2023, with a grace period of six months, ending on 28.02.2024. The
11 of 19

---

The Complainants submit that the Respondent has repeatedly given false assurances

of completion, while allottees continue to suffer. The Respondent, conversely, attributes the
delay to the Covid-19 pandemic, claiming force majeure, citing the nationwide lockdown
beginning March 2020, the impact on migrant labour, and consequential delays. The
Respondent further cites rocky terrain at the site, third-party disputes, and typographical
errors in the possession date as additional justifications.

(i) Whether the Covid-19 pandemic can be taken as a valid shield by the Respondent in the
present case?
57.

This Authority finds no merit in such contentions. The Agreement of Sale was

admittedly executed on 23.11.2021, much after the onset and near subsiding of the Covid-19
pandemic. The Respondent, being fully aware of the prevailing global circumstances,
nevertheless executed the Agreement by specifically assuring completion of the project by
August 2023 with the grace period of 6 months i.e 28.02.2024. Having consciously
undertaken such commitment, the Respondent cannot now, with retrospective justification,
rely on Covid-19 as a defense to escape its contractual and statutory obligations. Such
conduct clearly amounts to holding out false assurances with mala fide intent.
58.

It is a settled principle that once a promoter has chosen to register a project and enter

into binding contractual commitments with allottees, he does so with full knowledge of the
risks, constraints, and challenges of the market. At the time of entering into the Agreement of
Sale with the present Complainant, the Respondent was already aware of the Covid-related
disruptions, as well as the Government notifications granting moratoriums for project
completion timelines. Despite this knowledge, the Respondent chose to provide a specific
assurance of delivery by August 2023.
59.

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

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

12 of 19

---

60.

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

advantageous position with respect to project information and market realities, is under a
statutory duty to provide realistic timelines. The framework of the Real Estate (Regulation
and Development) Act, 2016 reinforces this obligation by mandating timely completion and
possession within the period stipulated in the Agreement of Sale.
61.

Therefore, the plea of Covid-19 as a force majeure defence in the present case is

wholly untenable. The Respondent, having executed the Agreement of Sale in November
2021 with specific possession timelines, cannot now seek to retrospectively attribute delays
to the pandemic. Accordingly, this Authority holds that the reliance on Covid-19 as a shield
stands rejected.
(ii) Extension of Registration
62.

The Respondent has further contended that, since extensions have been granted by

this Authority, the project timeline now stands extended up to February 2026, and therefore
possession shall be delivered by then. The Complainants, however, have questioned the
validity and effect of such extensions.
63.

At the outset, it must be clarified that under the scheme of the RE(R&D) Act:
“An Act to establish the Real Estate Regulatory Authority for regulation and
promotion of the real estate sector and to ensure sale of plot, apartment or building,
as the case may be, or sale of real estate project, in an efficient and transparent
manner and to protect the interest of consumers in the real estate sector and to
establish an adjudicating mechanism for speedy dispute redressal and also to
establish the Appellate Tribunal to hear appeals from the decisions, directions or
orders of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority and the adjudicating officer and for
matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”

64.

The paramount objective is twofold: protection of consumer interest, and ensuring

completion of projects in an efficient manner. Denial of extension during the Covid-19
disruption would have resulted in projects being stalled, to the grave prejudice of allottees. It
was in this context that this Authority, balancing the equities, granted extensions in line with
the moratoriums issued by Telangana RERA:
1. 15.03.2020 to 14.09.2020 (Circular No.14 dated 13.05.2020),
2. 15.09.2020 to 15.03.2021 (Order No.15 dated 29.09.2020),
3. 15.03.2021 to 14.09.2021 (Order No.16 dated 01.06.2021).

13 of 19

---

Accordingly, an aggregate 18 months’ extension was applied across projects to

safeguard larger consumer interest. However, it is equally well settled that such regulatory
extensions cannot dilute the contractual rights of individual allottees under their respective
Agreements of Sale, nor can they displace the statutory rights flowing from Section 18 of the
RE(R&D) Act.
66.

In the present matter, it is evident that the Respondent has unilaterally revised

possession timelines first to February 2024, and thereafter to February 2026 due to the
extension taken without consultation or consent of the Complainants. Such unilateral
revisions are impermissible. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Neelkamal Realtors
Suburban Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India &Ors. [2017 SCC OnLine Bom 9302], while
upholding the constitutional validity of RERA, categorically observed:
Para 119 “The RERA does not contemplate rewriting of contract between the
flat purchaser and the promoter."
Para 256 of this Judgment further clarifies that
“by giving opportunity to the promoter to prescribe fresh timeline under
Section 4(2)(l)(C), he is not absolved of the liability under the agreement for
sale”

67.

The above dicta makes it abundantly clear that any extension granted by the

Authority, or revised timelines uploaded on the TG RERA project registration portal, do not
ipso facto alter or bind the allottees’ contractual rights. The agreed date of possession remains
as stipulated in the Agreement for Sale, and unilateral extensions by the promoter cannot be
foisted upon allottees to their detriment.
68.

Accordingly, this Authority holds that the revised possession dates mentioned by the

Respondent, whether while seeking extensions before the Authority or as updated on the
registration portal, cannot be treated as binding on the Complainants.

(iii)Relief under Section 18 of the RE(R&D) Act:
69.

It is not in dispute that the Complainants have duly paid all amounts demanded

towards the total sale consideration of ₹1,20,06,450/-, diligently and without default, as
substantiated by the payment receipts placed on record before this Authority. The Agreement
of Sale unequivocally stipulated that possession was to be handed over by 31.08.2023, with a
grace period extending up to 28.02.2024. Admittedly, possession has not been delivered till
date.

14 of 19

---

The Respondent’s contention that 90% of the work is complete and that the

Complainants have paid only partial consideration is wholly untenable. The Complainants
have, in fact, discharged the entire demanded amounts. Despite receiving such substantial
sums, the Respondent has failed to honour its contractual obligations. It stands manifest that
the Respondent furnished false assurances, being fully conscious of the prevailing market
situation, yet stipulating dates of completion which it had no realistic capacity to adhere to. A
considerable period has elapsed beyond the stipulated date, yet the project remains
incomplete and possession has not been handed over.
71.

Therefore, the contention that the Complainants have not paid the balance

consideration is rejected, as the Complainants have in fact paid the entire sale consideration.
A promoter who is in default cannot compel an allottee to continue making payments
indefinitely, particularly when there is no tangible progress in the project and the timelines
are being unilaterally extended to cover the promoter’s own deficiencies.
72.

Now, Section 18 of the RE(R&D) Act is categorical:
(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:
Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the
project, he shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of
delay, till the handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be
prescribed.
(2) The promoter shall compensate the allottees in case of any loss
caused to him due to defective title of the land, on which the project is
being developed or has been developed, in the manner as provided
under this Act, and the claim for compensation under this subsection
shall not be barred by limitation provided under any law for the time
15 of 19

---

This statutory right of allottee is unqualified and absolute. Attention is drawn to the

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos. 3581-359 of 2022, Civil
Appeal Diary No. 9796/2019, M/s Imperia Structures Limited vs. Anil Patni & Others,
wherein it was held:
"In terms of Section 18 of the RERA Act, if a promoter fails to complete or
is unable to give possession of an apartment by the date specified in the
agreement, the promoter would be liable, on demand, to return the
amount received in respect of that apartment if the allottee wishes to
withdraw from the project. Such a right of the allottee is 'without
prejudice to any other remedy available to him'. This right is 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."
74.
Similarly, in Civil Appeal Nos. 6745-6749 of 2021, M/s Newtech Promoters and
Developers Private Limited vs. State of UP & Others, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed:
"Section 18(1) of the Act spells out the consequences if the promoter
fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an 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."
75.

Further, as earlier observed, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Neelkamal Realtors

Suburban Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [(2017) SCC Online Bom 9302] clarified that RERA
registration or its extension cannot rewrite the contract between parties. The date assured
under the Agreement of Sale, executed with the allottee’s consent, shall prevail. Thus, the
Respondent is bound by Section 11(4)(a) of the RE(R&D) Act, which mandates adherence to
the terms of the Agreement of Sale.
76.

In the present case, this Authority finds the Respondent in clear breach of both

statutory and contractual obligations. The Complainant is therefore entitled to interest at the
16 of 19

---

Accordingly, while the Complainant is entitled to relief under Section 18 of the

RE(R&D) Act.
78.

This Authority cannot remain oblivious to the larger pattern of violations. It is noted

with grave concern that more than fifty complaints have already been received against this
very Respondent in respect of the subject project. Such repeated defaults and false assurances
strike at the very root of the confidence that homebuyers are entitled to repose under the
protective framework of the RE(R&D) Act.
79.

The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the RE(R&D) Act explicitly emphasizes

“greater accountability towards consumers and to inject transparency, efficiency, and
discipline in the real estate sector”. The conduct of the Respondent herein is in gross
derogation of that legislative mandate. If such violations are permitted to persist, the very
soul of the Act would stand diluted and the protection promised to allottees rendered illusory.
80.

Accordingly, this Authority hereby sternly warns the Respondent promoter that any

further default, non-compliance, or failure to deliver possession within the assured statutory
timelines or any fresh grievances brought to notice by allottees shall invite invocation of
Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act.
81.

This Authority shall not hesitate to take the strictest view in future, for the Act was

enacted not as a mere regulatory framework but as a beneficial legislation to protect innocent
homebuyers from the very malaise exemplified by the conduct of this Respondent.
G. Directions of the Authority:
88.

In view of the findings and observations recorded hereinabove, this Authority

proceeds to issue the following directions:
a. The preliminary objection raised by the Respondent regarding the maintainability of
the complaint on account of the Dispute Resolution Clause in the Agreement of Sale
stands rejected. The complaint is maintainable before this Authority.
17 of 19

---

Having regard to the repeated defaults and the large number of complaints

already pending against this Respondent in the same project, this Authority sternly warns
the Respondent that any further delay, non-compliance, or grievance brought to notice by
allottees shall invite section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act.
90.

The complaint is accordingly allowed in part, in terms of the above directions.
18 of 19

---

Failure to comply with above said directions by the Respondent shall attract

penalty in accordance with Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016
92.

As a result, the complaint is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

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

Sd/Sri. Laxminaryana Jannu,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

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

19 of 19

---