Order Complaint No. 483 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 483 of 2025
Dated: 28th March, 2026
Quorum:

Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.), Hon’ble Chairperson
Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Hon’ble Member
Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu, Hon’ble Member

1. Mayur Jain,
2. Arushi Jain,
R/o: C-1003, Vertex Panache, Behind Akshay Patra Foundation, Kokapet, Hyderabad 500075,
…Complainant
Versus
M/s Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Private Limited,
Rep by its Chairman Srı. K. Ravinder Reddy,
O/o: 8-2-120/86/1, Plot No. 11 & 12, Keerthi Pride Tower, Road No. 2, banjara Hills,
Hyderabad - 500034
…Respondent
The present matter filed by the Complainant mentioned herein above came up for
hearing before this Authority in the presence of the Complainant in person and the Counsels
for Respondent, A. Tulsi Raj Gokul, Bindu M, Veer Prakash Jaiswal, P. Akhileswar, M. Praveen
Kumar Reddy, V. R. Mallika, and upon hearing the submissions of both the parties, this
Authority proceeds to pass the following ORDER:
2.

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

Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “RE(R&D) 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. Brief facts of the case:
3.

It is Submitted that the Complainant booked Unit No. C-1717 in the project known as

Janapriya Unnati, situated at Isnapur, on 29.01.2023. Due to delay and lack of communication,
the Complainant cancelled the said booking on 30.06.2025.
4.

It is stated that the Complainant informed the Respondent about the cancellation

through official emails. The Complainant has also submitted complete payment receipts to the
Page 1 of 11

---

It is stated that the Respondent has informally conveyed that the refund would be

processed either within 90 days or after the unit is sold, whichever is later. The Complainant
contends that the said condition is unreasonable and that the refund ought to be processed
within 90 days from the date of cancellation, irrespective of the resale of the unit.
B. Relief(s) Sought:
6.

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following reliefs:
i.

Direct the Respondent to refund the entire amount of Rs.33,06,982/- along with
applicable interest for the delay. Out of this amount, Rs.9,06,105/- was paid through
online transactions and Rs.24,00,877/- was paid through a home loan.

ii.

And to ensure the refund is completed within 90 days from the date of cancellation (I.e.,
by 28th September 2025).

C. Counter on behalf of Respondent:
7.

The Respondent submits that the present Complaint filed under Section 31 of the Real

Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 is not maintainable either in law or on facts
and is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. It is submitted that the Complainants themselves
voluntarily cancelled the booking of Unit No. C-1717 in the project “Janapriya Unnati”,
Isnapur, vide email dated 30.06.2025, and thereafter addressed multiple communications to the
Respondent as well as to their lender, Bajaj Housing Finance Ltd., seeking coordination for
refund and loan closure.
8.

According to the Respondent, there is no dispute with regard to cancellation,

possession, or any default on its part, and the only issue raised pertains to refund after voluntary
cancellation, which is governed entirely by the registered Agreement of Sale and applicable
RERA Rules, binding on the Complainants.
9.

It is further submitted that the Complaint involves interpretation of contractual refund

clauses and issues relating to loan repayment with the financier, which fall outside the limited
jurisdiction of this Authority, and reliance is placed on Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home
Finance Ltd., (2011) 5 SCC 532 and Neha Saini v. AIPL, RERA Punjab, Complaint No.171 of

Page 2 of 11

---

The Respondent submits that the Complainant booked Unit No. C-1717 on 29.01.2023

and executed an Agreement of Sale, pursuant to which payments amounting to approximately
₹33,06,982/- were made partly by the Complainant and partly through Bajaj Housing Finance
Ltd., which were duly acknowledged. It is submitted that during the period from June to August
2025, the Complainant unilaterally cancelled the booking, citing personal financial constraints
in email dated 15.08.2025, and sought refund.
11.

The Respondent states that the Complainant was informed vide email dated 08.07.2025

that, as per Clause 7 of the Agreement of Sale and RERA guidelines, refund would be processed
within 90 days from the date of resale of the flat or within 90 days from the date of receipt of
cancellation, whichever is later, and that no interest is payable in such circumstances. The
Respondent submits that the Complainant has misconstrued the said contractual clause as
unfair and has sought refund with interest under Section 18(1) of the Act, though the
cancellation was self-initiated and not on account of any delay or non-performance by the
Respondent. It is submitted that Section 18(1) applies only where the promoter fails to complete
or hand over possession within the agreed time, whereas in the present case the Complainant
voluntarily withdrew from the project, and therefore the refund is governed solely by the
contractual terms. In support, reliance is placed on M/s. Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. v.
Sushma Ashok Shiroor, (2022) 6 SCC 659 and DLF Home Developers Ltd. v. Capital Greens
Flat Buyers Association, (2021) 3 SCC 346.
12.

The Respondent further submits that refund clauses making payment contingent upon

resale are contractually valid and have been upheld by regulatory authorities, including in M/s.
TDI Infrastructure Ltd. v. RERA Haryana, 2021 SCC OnLine HRERA 37 and M/s.
Puravankara Projects Ltd. v. RERA Karnataka, Appeal No. APL-25 of 2020. It is submitted
that the allegations of deficiency of service or unfair trade practice are baseless, as the
Complainant has not produced any material to establish delay in construction or default by the
Respondent, and all demands were raised in accordance with construction progress as per
RERA registration. The Respondent submits that allegations of lack of communication are
unfounded, as refund coordination was initiated and acknowledged, including as admitted by
the Complainant in email dated 13.08.2025, wherein it was stated that the Respondent had

Page 3 of 11

---

It is further submitted that under the tripartite loan arrangement, any refund of the

disbursed amount is required to be made directly to the financier. The Respondent states that
the project “Janapriya Unnati” is duly registered under RERA bearing Project Registration No.
P01100017970, that statutory compliances are being regularly made, and that there is no
violation of Sections 3, 4, or 11 of the Act. It is finally submitted that the Complainant, having
voluntarily cancelled the booking, is not entitled to refund with interest or penalty, and that the
Respondent is willing to process the refund strictly in accordance with the Agreement of Sale,
i.e., within 90 days from resale, without prejudice to its rights.
14.

In view of the above submissions, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Authority may be

pleased to: dismiss the Complaint as not maintainable under Section 31 of the Act;
hold that Section 18(1) of the Act is not applicable to cases of voluntary cancellation; uphold
the contractual refund clause making refund conditional upon resale; reject the claim for
interest or compensation; and pass such other order(s) as this Hon’ble Authority may deem fit
and proper in the interest of justice.
D. Rejoinder filed on behalf of Complainants:
15.

The Complainants submit that the present Complaint is fully maintainable under

Sections 31 and 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and the
Respondent’s objection regarding maintainability is false and misleading. It is submitted that
the project is still under construction and that the possession date was repeatedly postponed by
the Respondent without any written communication. According to the Complainants, the
Respondent failed to provide accurate possession timelines, failed to issue written responses to
emails, failed to honour discussions relating to compensation, failed to respond to follow-ups,
and failed to provide proper customer service, thereby violating its statutory obligations under
Sections 11 and 12 of the Act.
16.

It is submitted that the allegation that the Complainants “voluntarily cancelled” the flat

is misleading, as the cancellation was a direct consequence of persistent delay, lack of
communication, and misleading assurances made by the Respondent, all of which constitute
deficiency of service under the Act. The Complainants submit that the Respondent has
selectively relied upon certain emails while ignoring several unanswered emails, delayed
replies, and contradictory possession timelines conveyed verbally and through phone calls.
Page 4 of 11

---

The Complainants submit that they booked Unit No. C-1717 and made all payments,

both from personal funds and through a bank loan, strictly in accordance with every demand
raised by the Respondent, and that not a single default was committed by them, which fact is
admitted by both the Respondent and the lender. It is submitted that from 2023 to 2025, the
Complainants repeatedly raised concerns regarding absence of any written confirmation of
possession date, contradictory verbal possession timelines, lack of written replies to emails,
false assurances by the sales team regarding compensation for delays, and failure to
acknowledge concerns relating to construction progress, all of which were ignored by the
Respondent.
18.

It is submitted that the cancellation email dated 30.06.2025 was not a voluntary

withdrawal but was compelled due to the Respondent’s continuous non-responsiveness and
failure to perform its contractual obligations. The Complainants submit that the Respondent’s
assertion that there was no delay, deficiency, or unfair trade practice is incorrect, as delay and
deficiency are evident from repeated shifting of possession timelines, absence of written replies
to delay-related queries, lack of escalation or resolution despite reminders, verbal assurances
of compensation followed by silence, and forcing the Complainants to repeatedly follow up
without clarity.
19.

It is submitted that the Respondent’s reliance on Clause 7 of the Agreement of Sale for

refund is misplaced, as a contractual refund clause cannot override the mandatory obligations
under the Act where the cancellation was caused by delay, silence, and misleading
representations attributable to the builder. The Complainants submit that Section 18(1) of the
Act is applicable, as possession was not delivered within the agreed timeline and the
Respondent failed to provide updated timelines or construction progress.
20.

It is submitted that voluntary cancellation occurs only where the allottee withdraws

without any fault on the part of the promoter, whereas in the present case, the withdrawal was
directly caused by the Respondent’s failure in service, communication, transparency, and
adherence to timelines. The Complainants submit that the judgments relied upon by the
Respondent relate to cases where buyers withdrew without any default on the part of the
builder, whereas in the present case the Respondent has defaulted in service and statutory
obligations. It is submitted that failure to respond to repeated customer emails itself constitutes
breach of obligations under Sections 11(4)(a), 11(4)(b), and Section 12 of the Act, and no

Page 5 of 11

---

The Complainants submit that at the time of booking, the Respondent expressly

mentioned in the Booking Form that possession would be handed over by August/September
2024, which written commitment induced the Complainants to proceed with the booking, avail
a bank loan, and make timely payments. It is submitted that despite this commitment, the
Respondent failed to hand over possession by August/September 2024 and also failed to issue
any formal written communication seeking extension of time or providing revised timelines,
which is mandatory under the Act. The Complainants submit that despite repeated requests for
clarity, the Respondent gave shifting and contradictory verbal timelines, including March 2025,
June 2025, and September/October 2025, none of which were ever communicated in writing,
amounting to misleading representation under Section 12 of the Act. It is further submitted that
the Respondent urged the Complainants to complete registration of the flat while assuring
possession by June 2025, which demonstrates that the Respondent was aware of the delay but
deliberately avoided issuing written commitments to evade liability under Section 18.
22.

It is submitted that while the Agreement of Sale mentions only the overall project

completion date of December 2026, it does not specify the unit-specific possession date for
Flat No. C-1717, on the ground that the same was mentioned in the Booking Form. The
Complainants submit that this omission is contrary to Rule 5 of the Telangana Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017, which mandates that the Agreement of Sale be in
the prescribed format and include the unit-specific possession date, rendering the Agreement
non-compliant with law. It is submitted that the possession date mentioned in the Booking
Form, i.e., August/September 2024, must therefore be treated as the agreed date of possession,
as it is the only written possession date ever provided, formed the basis for securing the bank
loan and making payments, and was never revised in writing despite repeated requests.
23.

The Complainants submit that the Respondent has consistently evaded emails and

relied solely on verbal assurances, which amounts to deficiency of service, misleading
representation under Section 12, violation of Sections 11(4)(a) and 11(4)(b), and unfair trade
practice under the Act.
24.

The Complainants submit that they will rely upon documentary evidence including

unanswered emails, emails seeking possession clarification, WhatsApp and call logs

Page 6 of 11

---

In view of the above, the Complainants pray that the Respondent’s counter be rejected,

that the cancellation be held to be caused by the Respondent’s delay and non-responsiveness,
that Section 18(1) be applied, and that the Respondent be directed to refund the amounts paid
along with interest within a fixed time frame, along with such other orders as deemed fit in the
interest of justice.
E. Points to be determined:
26.

Based on the facts and circumstances placed before this Authority, the following

questions arise for adjudication:
I.

Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief sought? If so, to what extent?

F. Observations of the Authority:
27.

This Authority has carefully considered the pleadings, documents placed on record, and

the rival submissions advanced by the both the parties. It is not in dispute that the Complainant
booked Unit No. C-1717 in the project “Janapriya Unnati”, Isnapur, on 29.01.2023 and
subsequently cancelled the said booking on 30.06.2025. It is also not disputed that payments
aggregating to ₹33,06,982/- were made partly by the Complainant and partly through a home
loan from Bajaj Housing Finance Ltd., and that the Respondent acknowledged receipt of the
said amounts. The factum of cancellation by the Complainant is admitted by both parties.
28.

The Complainant’s case is that the cancellation was compelled due to delay, lack of

communication, absence of written possession timelines, and shifting verbal assurances
allegedly given by the Respondent, which according to the Complainant amount to deficiency
of service and misleading representation under Sections 11 and 12 of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The Complainant contends that the Respondent
informally stated that refund would be processed either within 90 days or after resale of the
unit, whichever is later, and asserts that such a condition is unreasonable. On this basis, the
Complainant seeks refund of the entire amount along with interest and a direction that the
refund be completed within 90 days from the date of cancellation.
29.

The Respondent, on the other hand, contends that the cancellation was voluntary and

self-initiated by the Complainant and that there is no dispute with respect to possession,
construction, or any default on the part of the Respondent. It is submitted that the only issue
Page 7 of 11

---

Therefore, the principal question that arises for consideration is whether the

Complainant’s cancellation can be attributed to any failure or default on the part of the
Respondent so as to attract the provisions of Section 18(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016.
31.

Upon examination of the Agreement of Sale placed on record, it is observed that Clause

1.8 thereof defines the “completion date” of the project as 12.10.2026. It is further observed
that the project “Janapriya Unnati” is registered with this Authority vide Registration Number
P01100003067, and that the validity of the RERA registration extends up to 12.10.2026.
Additionally, the Form-B declaration submitted by the Respondent and uploaded on the project
webpage maintained with this Authority discloses that the Respondent has declared 30.03.2027
as the date by which it undertakes to complete the project. These disclosures form part of the
statutory information available in the public domain under the RE(R&D) Act.
32.

From the above, it is evident that the project was not contractually or statutorily due for

completion as on the date of cancellation, i.e., 30.06.2025. It is also an admitted position that
the Agreement of Sale does not specify a unit-specific date of possession for Unit No. C-1717.
In the absence of such a specific possession date, the completion date stipulated in the
Agreement of Sale, read with the project registration validity under RERA, governs the
timeline for delivery of possession.
33.

The Complainant has sought to rely upon possession timelines allegedly mentioned in

the Booking Form and on certain verbal assurances said to have been given by the Respondent.
However, it is observed that the Agreement of Sale constitutes the binding contractual
document governing the rights and obligations of the parties, as it was subsequently executed
and mutually agreed upon by both parties. Once the parties have entered into a duly executed
Agreement of Sale, the terms contained therein prevail and supersede any prior
communications, representations, or preliminary understandings, unless the same are expressly
Page 8 of 11

---

With regard to the allegation that the Agreement of Sale is non-compliant on the ground

that it does not mention a unit-specific possession date, it is observed that while the Telangana
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 prescribe a format for the Agreement
of Sale, the absence of a separate unit-specific possession date, when a clear project completion
date is stipulated and disclosed under RERA, does not by itself render the Agreement void or
illegal, particularly in the absence of any finding by this Authority that the Agreement violates
mandatory statutory provisions.
35.

The contention of the Complainant that the cancellation was compelled due to lack of

communication and deficiency of service has also been examined. While effective
communication is an expected obligation of a promoter, the record indicates that
communications regarding cancellation and refund were acknowledged and addressed by the
Respondent. The Complainant has not produced material to show that the Respondent
abandoned the project, ceased construction, or refused to perform its obligations under the
Agreement of Sale.
36.

Section 18(1) of the RE(R&D) Act confers a right of refund with interest only where

the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of the apartment in accordance
with the terms of the agreement for sale. In the present case, as the cancellation was effected
on 30.06.2025, much prior to the contractual completion date of 12.10.2026, and in the absence
of proof of promoter default, the cancellation cannot be treated as one occasioned by failure on
the part of the Respondent. The cancellation, therefore, falls within the category of voluntary
withdrawal.
37.

At this juncture, it is relevant to note that Clause 7.5 of the Model Agreement of Sale

prescribed under the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017
provides that where an allottee proposes to cancel or withdraw from the project without any
fault of the promoter, the promoter is entitled to forfeit the booking amount, and the balance
amount paid shall be refunded to the allottee within three months of such cancellation or at the
time when the promoter is able to resell the apartment to another purchaser, whichever is later.
Page 9 of 11

---

Once the cancellation is held to be voluntary, the refund is necessarily governed by the

contractual terms agreed between the parties. The RE(R&D) Act does not mandate refund with
interest in cases of voluntary cancellation where Section 18 is not attracted. Therefore, the
Complainant’s challenge to the refund clause cannot be sustained in the absence of any
statutory prohibition.
39.

However, the contention of the Respondent that the refund is payable within 90 days

only after resale of the subject unit, without any definitive timeline, cannot be accepted. In this
regard, Clause 7.5 of the Model Agreement of Sale prescribed under the Telangana Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 clearly provides that the refund shall be made
within 90 days from the date of cancellation or upon resale of the unit, whichever is later, and
the said clause cannot be interpreted to permit the promoter to retain the amounts paid by an
allottee for an unreasonably prolonged and indeterminate period. Therefore, this Authority is
not inclined to accept the Respondent’s contention that refund can be indefinitely deferred on
the ground of non-resale of the subject unit.
40.

In the present case, it is an admitted position that the cancellation was effected on

30.06.2025, and the Respondent acknowledged the same and communicated the applicable
refund terms vide email dated 08.07.2025. Even if the outer limit of 90 days is computed from
the said date, the period expired by 06.10.2025. As on the date of this Order, no material has
been placed on record by the Respondent to demonstrate that the unit has been resold, nor has
any documentary evidence been produced to show bona fide steps taken towards such resale
or processing of refund.
41.

This Authority is of the considered view that the Respondent, having failed to either

effect resale within a reasonable time or refund the amounts within the stipulated 90 days,
cannot continue to withhold the Complainant’s money under the guise of a contractual clause.
Such conduct defeats the very objective of the RE(R&D) Act, which seeks to ensure fairness,
transparency, and protection of allottees
42.

Accordingly, while it is held that the Complainant is not entitled to invoke Section 18(1)

of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 in view of the voluntary nature of the cancellation, the Respondent
is hereby directed to refund the balance amount payable to the Complainant, to the bank within
a period of 30 days from the date of this Order.
Page 10 of 11

---

In the event of failure to comply within the aforesaid period, the said amount shall carry

interest at the rate prescribed under the Rules, from the expiry of 90 days from the date of
cancellation (i.e., from 29.09.2025) till the date of actual realization.
44.

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

Sd/-

Sd/-

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

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

Sd/-

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

Page 11 of 11

---