Order Complaint No. 453 of 2025​

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 453 of 2025
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

Satrajeet Gupta
R/o: Flat #413, Block- A, G K Heights,
KPHB, Hyderabad- 500072
…Complainant
Versus
M/s. Vasavi Realtor LLP,
Rep by its Designated Partner, Vijay Kumar Yerram,
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 filed by the Complainant herein came up for hearing before this
Authority in presence of Complainant and the Respondent; upon pursuing the material on
record and on hearing arguments of 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 “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 Respondents.
A. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the Complainant, are as follows:
1.

The Complainant submits that the Complainant booked a residential apartment in the

project known as Vasavi Lake City on 19th December 2020 and subsequently entered into an
Agreement of Sale with Vasavi Realtors in November 2021 for the purchase of a flat situated

Page 1 of 21

---

The Complainant submits that the address of the said property is Vasavi Lake City,

Manjeera Pipeline Road, APGOs Cooperative Housing Society, Hafeezpet, Hyderabad,
Telangana – 500050.
3.

The Complainant submits that as per the original Agreement of Sale, the committed

date for handing over possession of the said flat was on or before August 2023. Despite the
Complainant having made all payments strictly in accordance with the payment schedule and
within stipulated timelines, and despite multiple follow-ups, meetings, and discussions with
the builder and its management, the flat has not been handed over even as of July 2025,
resulting in a delay of approximately 23 months. The Complainant further submits that there is
no certainty as to when possession will be handed over, as the builder has repeatedly pushed
the possession date.
4.

The Complainant submits that the Complainant has been continuously following up

with the builder, its management, and CRM team for over a year regarding the delay in handing
over possession. However, no clear or reliable assurance has been provided. In every meeting,
a tentative handover date is mentioned, which is subsequently postponed without any
meaningful explanation. After several visits to the builder’s head office, a meeting was held in
September 2024, during which the builder issued a written commitment on its letterhead stating
that flats would be handed over for interiors by 14th February 2025. This date was later revised
to 7th March 2025 and, as per the latest Minutes of Meeting, further postponed to June 2025.
As the end of June 2025 approached, there was no formal communication regarding handover.
Site inspection clearly shows minimal progress, making imminent handover highly
improbable. Despite repeated follow-ups, the CRM team has failed to provide clear or
consistent updates.
5.

The Complainant submits that since September 2023, there has been negligible progress

at the site for nearly one and a half years. Only minor works such as partial installation of doors,
windows, and tiles appear to be taking place at an extremely slow pace. A substantial amount
of work remains pending, which, if not addressed urgently, will further delay the handover.

Page 2 of 21

---

The Complainant submits that upon communicating with other flat owners in the same

tower, the Complainant came to know that the builder has issued different possession dates to
different allottees of the same tower in their respective Agreements of Sale. Despite the
Complainant having complied with all payment demands in a timely manner, the Complainant
feels cheated and discriminated against due to the issuance of differing possession timelines.
7.

The Complainant submits that even after a delay of more than 22 months from the

committed possession date of August 2023, possession has not been handed over as of June
2025. Each newly proposed timeline has been repeatedly breached, and the possession date has
been pushed at least three times in the last 6–8 months alone.
8.

The Complainant submits that several critical works in the building remain incomplete,

including but not limited to:


Bathroom fixtures, windows, and door installations;



Switchboards and water connections;



Rectification of poor workmanship, including visible gaps between windows
and walls, extremely narrow doors that restrict movement of household
appliances, and water leakage across multiple floors;



External painting, internal painting, and waterproofing works;



Completion of society amenities such as the clubhouse, garden, and children’s
play area;



Completion of parking ramps and parking areas;



Installation of staircase railings, rendering staircases unsafe for use;



Removal of large construction debris and dumps within the building, indicating
substantial pending work.

9.

The Complainant submits that the kitchen platform has not been installed, despite its

cost being included in the total consideration for the flat. The builder has neither installed the
same nor provided any clarity regarding reimbursement of the corresponding amount.
10.

The Complainant submits that essential services such as electricity and water

provisioning have not yet been initiated, further demonstrating that the project is far from
completion and that the builder has failed to adhere to its contractual and statutory obligations.

Page 3 of 21

---

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following reliefs:

i. To pay interest in the total amount paid to Vasavi so far equivalent to what would have
accrued through a Fixed Deposit during this period. Alternatively, to pay monthly rent
equivalent to prevailing market rental value of a similar flat in Vasavi Lake City area.
ii. To direct Respondent to pay the kitchen platform cost as per the Complainants kitchen size.
C. Counter filed by the Respondent:
12.

It is submitted by the Respondent that the complaint is not maintainable either in law

or on facts and is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the complainant has not followed
the remedies available under the Agreement for Sale for resolution of disputes before
approaching this Hon’ble Authority. Further, no prior legal notice was issued before filing this
complaint, which itself renders the application defective and not maintainable.
It is submitted that the project “Lake City-East” was developed lawfully after obtaining rights
from the landowners under registered documents, covering 34,704.37 sq. yds. While requisite
land conversion permissions and building permissions for construction of multi-storied
apartments were obtained on 07.02.2020. The project consists of six towers (4 cellars + ground
+ 14 upper floors), Tower No. 4, 5, and 6 (3 Cellars + ground + 14 upper floors) and a clubhouse
(stilt + ground + five upper floors). The project was duly registered with this Authority vide
Registration No. P02500001821 dated 20.03.2020.
13.

It is further submitted that the Complainant was allotted an apartment in the project

vide booking dated 26.09.2020, and was allotted an apartment No. E.31307 on the 13th Floor
of Tower 3, admeasuring 1650 sq. ft., along with parking, for a total consideration of
Rs.80,02,000/-. The Agreement of Sale sets out the carpet area, balcony/veranda area, common
area, and undivided share of land. The Complainant has paid Rs.16,80,420/- towards the sale
consideration, while the balance amount remains payable in accordance with the agreed
payment schedule.
14.

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

hand over possession of the flat and common areas by 31.08.2023, subject to extension in the
event of force majeure. The Agreement itself clearly records that timely delivery is the essence

Page 4 of 21

---

It is submitted that the complainants have not come before this Hon’ble Authority with

clean facts but with an ulterior motive to make unlawful gain and that there has been material
suppression of facts of the case with regard to the claim and the relief sought therein.
16.

It is further stated that COVID-19 is a force majeure event duly recognized under law,

and hence the timelines stood extended. The Respondent contended that the COVID-19
pandemic, subsequent lockdowns, and migration of labourers had severely impacted
construction work. The Respondent further relies on the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Suo Motu Writ Petition No. 3 of 2020, whereby the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022
was excluded for the purposes of computation of limitation across various statutes. It is
contended that the extension of time for completion of the project was not only factually
justified but also recognised in law.
17.

In addition to COVID-19, the Respondent submits that unforeseen site conditions such

as rocky terrain requiring manual excavation further delayed the project. Owing to restrictions
on blasting due to the residential nature of the surrounding locality, excavation could only be
done manually, which compounded the delay. These challenges were communicated to all
allottees through regular updates and meetings.
18.

The Respondent also submits that certain third-party disputes adversely impacted the

project timelines. These include cases such as RERA Case No. 190/2020, W.P. Nos.
2694/2021, 13898/2022, 33433/2023, W.A. No. 584/2023, SLP Nos. 9694–9695/2023, and
W.P. No. 26301/2024, some of which are still pending. While most have been resolved, their
pendency at various points of time hindered the smooth progress of the project.
19.

It is contended that the project has been executed strictly in accordance with approved

plans and specifications, and any clerical or typographical errors in the Agreement of Sale
cannot be construed to create liability. It is the case of the Respondent that more than 90% of
the project construction is completed and the project is presently in its final finishing stage. An
extension of registration has already been granted by this Authority till 07.02.2026, within
which period the Respondent undertakes to deliver possession of the apartments to all allottees.
Communications have also been issued to purchasers for payment of balance amounts, as
completion is nearing.

Page 5 of 21

---

With regard to the claims for interest and compensation, the Respondent submits that

in view of the force majeure conditions, no such relief is available to the Complainant under
law. Section 6 of the Act specifically contemplates force majeure events such as natural
calamities and other circumstances beyond the control of the promoter. The Respondent
submits that the COVID-19 pandemic, together with the extraordinary circumstances outlined
above, clearly falls within the scope of force majeure.
D. Rejoinder filed by the Complainant:
21.

It is submitted by the Complainant that the objection raised by the Respondent is vague,

misconceived, and legally unfounded. The present complaint has been filed under Section 31
of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which confers a clear statutory
right upon an aggrieved allottee to seek redressal before this Hon’ble Authority. The
Agreement of Sale dated 19th December 2020 unequivocally stipulates the committed
possession date as 31st August 2023. Till date, the flat remains undelivered, and therefore, the
complaint is well within the bounds of law and merits full consideration.
22.

It is submitted by the Complainant that the Complainant does not dispute the

Respondent’s development rights in respect of the project. However, the existence of such
rights does not dilute or override the Respondent’s contractual and statutory obligation to hand
over possession within the agreed timeline. The core issue is the Respondent’s failure to deliver
possession in accordance with the executed Agreement of Sale.
23.

It is submitted by the Complainant that while the Respondent may have obtained land

conversion and building permissions dated 07th February 2020 for construction of multistoried residential apartments, such approvals do not absolve the Respondent of liability for
delay. Having regulatory permissions does not discharge the promoter from the legal duty of
timely execution and lawful handover of the allotted unit.
24.

It is submitted by the Complainant that although the project was registered under

RERA, the Respondent has grossly failed to comply with the obligations that accompany such
registration. RERA registration imposes strict statutory duties relating to transparency,
accountability, and timely possession. The Respondent has repeatedly failed to update the
project status, disclose realistic possession timelines, or act in a fair and accountable manner,
thereby violating Sections 4, 11, and 18 of the RERA Act.

Page 6 of 21

---

It is submitted by the Complainant that the Respondent’s emphasis on the alleged

booking date of 19-08-2020 is legally irrelevant. The Agreement of Sale dated 19th December
2020 is the only binding document governing the rights, obligations, and timelines between the
parties, including the committed possession date of 31st August 2023. RERA mandates
consideration of the Agreement date and not the preliminary booking date.
26.

It is submitted by the Complainant that the Complainant has paid approximately

₹68,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty-Eight Lakhs only), constituting more than 83% of the total sale
consideration, strictly in accordance with Schedule C of the Agreement of Sale. The balance
amount is contractually payable only upon handover of possession, which has not occurred till
date. There is no default on the part of the Complainant, and any suggestion otherwise is
misleading and false
27.

It is submitted by the Complainant that the Respondent has deliberately failed to address

the core issue of inordinate delay in handing over possession and has instead attempted to divert
attention to irrelevant matters such as specifications under Schedules D and E. The present
complaint is confined to delay in possession, and such diversionary tactics deserve to be
rejected.
28.

It is submitted by the Complainant that the Respondent has never proactively

communicated delays or construction progress, despite repeated follow-ups by the
Complainant. Project schedules were shared only after persistent demands and were never
adhered to. This conduct demonstrates a lack of transparency and accountability as mandated
under the RERA framework.
29.

It is submitted by the Complainant that the delay cannot be attributed to COVID-19 or

force majeure, as the Agreement of Sale was executed on 19th December 2020, when the
Respondent was fully aware of pandemic-related circumstances. The substantial delay
occurred from the end of 2023 onwards, at a time when COVID-19 was no longer in effect. No
demand letters were issued after September 2023 for over a year, clearly indicating that
construction activity had largely stalled. The Complainant’s unit in Tower-3, East Wing, was
structurally completed more than 18 months ago.
30.

It is submitted by the Complainant that the Respondent’s claim that the possession date

mentioned in the Agreement of Sale was an “error” is a dishonest afterthought. The Agreement

Page 7 of 21

---

It is submitted by the Complainant that the allegations made against the Complainant

are unfounded, derogatory, and intended solely to divert attention from the Respondent’s
prolonged failure to deliver possession. The Complainant has placed extensive documentary
evidence on record, including the registered Agreement of Sale, payment receipts evidencing
over 83% payment, minutes of meetings, written correspondence, and a record of repeatedly
shifting possession timelines extending into February 2024, August 2024, February 2025, and
June 2025, none of which were honoured. No possession notice has been issued till date.
32.

It is submitted by the Complainant that the Respondent’s reliance on extension of

RERA registration till February 2026 is misconceived. As per Section 19(2) of the RERA Act,
the allottee is entitled to possession strictly in accordance with the Agreement of Sale and not
as per the outer limit of project registration validity.
33.

It is submitted by the Complainant that under Section 11(3)(a) of the RERA Act, it is

the statutory responsibility of the promoter to ensure that the project is free from encumbrances
and legal risks, and under Section 18(1) of the Act, the Respondent is liable to pay interest for
every month of delay until handing over possession.
34.

It is submitted by the Complainant that in view of the above facts and circumstances,

this Hon’ble Authority may be pleased to reject the Respondent’s baseless objections and hold
the Respondent accountable under Sections 18(1) and 19(4) of the RERA Act for failure to
deliver possession and for causing continuous hardship, financial loss, and mental agony to the
Complainant.
D. Points for Consideration
35.

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?
Page 8 of 21

---

E. Observations of the Authority:
Point 1:
36.

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.
37.

The Authority finds this objection untenable for the following reasons:

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.”
38.

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. 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.
39.

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.

Page 9 of 21

---

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 Subsection (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 non-arbitrable, 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.”*
41.

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

Page 10 of 21

---

42.

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:
43.

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

delay in handing over possession of the subject flat, despite timely payments of approximately
83% of the total sale consideration, causing significant financial and emotional distress.
44.

It is the case of the Complainant that the Agreement of Sale dated 19.12.2020 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 Respondent has failed to hand over possession
even as of February 2025. Further, although the project was registered with TG RERA up to
February 2025 and later extended until 07.02.2026, the project remains incomplete, with
construction progress stalled at approximately 70% as per the Complainant’s submission, with
key aspects such as interior finishing, common amenities, and supporting infrastructure
remaining unfinished. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has issued multiple
revised handover schedules without providing valid justification or a clear roadmap for
completion.
Page 11 of 21

---

The Complainant further submits that despite assurances made, including a promise to

pay compensation for delay as per RERA guidelines, no such compensation has been provided.
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?
46.

This Authority finds no merit in such a contention. The Agreement of Sale was executed

on 19.12.2020, well after the onset and initial impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. The
Respondent, being fully aware of the prevailing circumstances, nevertheless executed the
Agreement by specifically assuring completion of the project by August 2023. 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.
47.

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.
48.

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 fair assessment of
the time required for completing the project…".

Page 12 of 21

---

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.
50.

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 December 2020 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
51.

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.
52.

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.”

53.

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:

Page 13 of 21

---

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.
55.

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

possession timelines 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”
56.

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.
57.

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:

Page 14 of 21

---

It has been observed by this Authority that the total sale consideration is for an amount

of Rs. 80,02,000/- (Rupees Eighty Lakh Two Thousand Only). That, as per the Agreement of
Sale the Complainant has paid an amount of Rs. 16,80,420 /- (Rupees Sixteen Lakh Eighty
Thousand Four Hundred And Twenty Only). However it is observed that as per the payment
receipts placed before this Authority that a sum of Rs. 68,81,470/- (Rupees Sixty Eight Lakh
Eighty One Thousand Four Hundred And Seventy Only) has been duly paid by the
Complainant herein towards the sale consideration. Further, the Agreement clearly stipulated
possession by 31.08.2023, with a grace period of 6 months to 28.02.2024. Admittedly,
possession has not been delivered.
59.

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

have paid only a portion of the consideration is wholly unsustainable. The Complainants have
already paid substantial sum of the agreed consideration as per their averments. Despite
receiving such substantial sums, the Respondent has failed to honour its contractual
obligations. It is manifest that the Respondent gave false assurances, being fully conscious of
the market situation, yet assuring dates of completion that it had no capacity to honour. More
than one year has elapsed beyond the stipulated date, yet the project is neither complete nor
possession handed over.
60.

The Respondent further seeks to shift the burden on the complainant by contending that

the balance amount is unpaid. This plea is untenable. The law does not permit a defaulter to
take advantage of its own breach. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kusheshwar
Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar [Civil Appeal No. 7357 of 2000]:
“It is settled principle of law that a man cannot be permitted to take undue and unfair
advantage of his own wrong to gain favourable interpretation of law. It is sound
principle that he, who prevents a thing from being done shall not avail himself of the
non-performance he has occasioned. To put it differently, "a wrongdoer ought not to
be permitted to make a profit out of his own wrong”
61.

In this context, it is pertinent to note that the Agreement of Sale linked the payment

schedule to the progress of construction. While the allottees are indeed bound to adhere to the
agreed payment plan, such obligation arises only when the promoter simultaneously fulfils its
reciprocal obligation of executing construction in line with the assured progress. In the absence

Page 15 of 21

---

Section 18 of the RE(R&D) Act is categorical and unconditional. It does not make the

grant of interest contingent upon the quantum of sale consideration paid, nor does it provide
any defence to a defaulting promoter. Once delay in handing over possession is established, an
allottee who elects to remain in the project is entitled to interest for every month of delay,
irrespective of whether part or whole of the consideration has been paid, provided that the
payments already made are in accordance with the Agreement of sale. The Respondent’s plea
that only “partial sale consideration” has been paid and hence interest cannot be granted is
therefore vague, misconceived, and contrary to the express mandate of the statute.
63.

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

Page 16 of 21

---

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."
65.

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."
66.

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

Page 17 of 21

---

At the same time, if the Complainant has indeed defaulted in adhering to the payment

schedule, the Respondent is not without remedy. Sections 19(6) and 19(7) of the Act confer
upon the promoter a right to claim interest for delayed payments, as per Rule 15 of the
Telangana RE(R&D) Rules, 2017. Nevertheless, such entitlement shall be subject to the
Respondent producing cogent and substantive documents demonstrating both the stage-wise
progress of construction and the corresponding default, and not merely based on unilateral
assertions.
68.

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 prescribed
rate for the entire period of delay, i.e., from 01.03.2024 until the actual date of handing over
possession. As regards claims of compensation, this Authority notes that jurisdiction for
adjudicating compensation lies with the Adjudicating Officer under Section 71 of RE(R&D)
Act with Form ‘N’. The Complainant is at liberty to pursue such remedy separately.
69.

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

RE(R&D) Act, 2016 this entitlement is subject to the reciprocal statutory duty of the
Complainant to discharge any outstanding amounts under the payment plan, if not already paid.
Compliance on both sides is essential to ensure balance of obligations and timely delivery.
70.

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, 2016.
71.

The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 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.

Page 18 of 21

---

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.
73.

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.
74.

The Respondent is hereby directed to complete the project and hand over possession to

the Complainants within the stipulated period. It is further clarified that if the Complainants
have defaulted in making payments as per the agreed schedule, the Respondent shall be entitled
under Section 19(6) of the Act to claim interest on such delayed payments, provided that it
substantiates such claim with credible documentary evidence of both construction progress and
corresponding default.
75.

In the event the Complainants have defaulted in making payments as per the agreed

schedule, the Respondent shall be entitled, under Section 19(6) of the Real Estate (Regulation
and Development) Act, 2016, to claim interest on such delayed payments in accordance with
Rule 15 of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017.
Nevertheless, such entitlement shall be subject to the Respondent producing cogent and
substantive documents demonstrating both the stage-wise progress of construction and the
corresponding default, and not merely based on unilateral assertions.
76.

The Complainants are, in turn, directed to discharge any balance amounts due under

the agreed payment schedule, if not already paid. Mutual compliance is essential to ensure
timely completion and delivery of the project.

G. Directions of the Authority:
77.

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.

Page 19 of 21

---

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, 2016.
79.

The Complaint is accordingly allowed in part, in terms of the above directions.

Page 20 of 21

---

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.
81.

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 Laxmi Narayana Jannu,
Hon’ble Member,
TG RERA

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

Page 21 of 21

---