Order Complaint No. 49 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 49 of 2025
31st January 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. Dr. Ganta Sudhakar Reddy
(S/o. G. Rama Krishna Reddy,
Aged about 66 years R/o. 3-8-187,
Road No. 4, Chandrapuri Colony,
L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad - 500074)

2. Smt. Aruna Palgani
(W/o. Ganta Sudhakar Reddy
Aged about 63 years
R/o. 3-8-187, Road No. 4,
Chandrapuri Colony,
L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad - 500074)

… Complainants
Versus
M/s. Maruti Rich Ventures Pvt. Ltd.
(Represented by its Directors
i.
Mr.Pramod Ramrakhyani,
ii.
Pradeep Ramrakhyani
iii.
Pavan Ramrakhyani,
Having its registered office, Flat No. 304,
3ª Floor, Navketan Complex,
S.D Road, Secunderabad – 500003)

… Respondent
The present matter, filed by the Complainants, were taken up for final hearing before
this Authority, wherein both the parties appeared in person. Upon perusal of the material on
record and after hearing the arguments advanced by both parties, and having reserved the
matter for consideration till this day, the following order is passed:
ORDER
2.

The present Complaint has been filed by the Complainant no.1 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,

1

---

The Complainant no.1 stated that he and his wife entered into a Memorandum of

Understanding (MoU-1) with P CUBE Associates, a registered partnership firm represented by
all directors of the Respondent, on August 29, 2020. As per the terms of the agreement, the
directors of the Respondent assured them of the registration of Flat No. 705, situated on the
Seventh Floor, Northern Block, admeasuring 4,309 square feet, along with 3 car parking spaces
(each measuring 100 square feet, totalling 300 square feet), in the project “THE LAKE
TOWERS” located in Sy. Nos. 31 to 41, Madhapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, GHMC
Serilingampalli Circle, Ranga Reddy District.
4.

The Complainant no.1 submits that on December 23, 2021, the flat was registered in the

names of the Complainant no.1 and his wife, bearing Flat No. 705, situated on the Seventh
Floor, Northern Block, admeasuring 4,309 square feet, along with 3 car parking spaces (each
measuring 100 square feet, totalling 300 square feet), in the project “THE LAKE TOWERS”
located in Sy. Nos. 31 to 41, Madhapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, GHMC
Serilingampalli Circle, Ranga Reddy District by the Respondent, M/s. Maruti Rich Ventures
Pvt. Ltd. The registration was completed after the payment of ₹1,40,00,000/- (Rupees One
Crore Forty Lakhs Only), which was fully paid prior to the registration, including parking and
amenities charges.
5.

The Complainant no.1 further submits that on December 23, 2021, he and his wife

entered into a second Memorandum of Understanding (MoU-2) with M/s Maruti Rich Ventures
Pvt. Ltd., represented by Respondent. This MoU was a continuation of MoU-1 and contained
the relevant covenants for the registered flat in their names.
6.

The Complainant no.1 stated that as per the terms of MoU-2, the Respondent committed

to delivering possession of the flat by May 31, 2022, and in case of delay beyond the committed
date, the Respondent agreed to pay compensation of ₹75,000/- per month, payable at the end
of each month starting from June 2022. The Complainant no.1 submits that despite repeated
reminders and follow-ups regarding the compensation for the delayed delivery of the project,
there is still no clarity regarding its completion status.

2

---

In light of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the Complainant no.1 humbly

prays for the following reliefs:
a. To direct the Respondent, as per the Sale Deed and Memorandum of Understanding,
the Respondent is obligated to pay Rs.75,000/- per month starting from June 2022 if
they failed to deliver the flat by May 31, 2022. As of November 30, 2024, the total
amount due is Rs. 22, 50,000/-, which must be paid immediately.
b. To direct the Respondent to deliver and hand over possession of the flat to the
Complainant no.1s at the earliest, without any further delay.
C. Reply to Show Cause Notice:
8.

The Respondent submits that the Show Cause Notice dated 25.04.2025 issued under

Sections 3(1) and 4(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA”),
alleging non-registration of the project “The Lake Towers,” is misconceived and unsustainable.
The Respondent respectfully submits that the Project commenced pursuant to Building
Permission dated 01.07.2015, much prior to 01.01.2017, and as per the Pre-Amendment Rule
2(1)(j) of the Telangana State Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017, projects
with such permissions were excluded from the definition of “ongoing project.” Hence, the
Project was not required to be registered under RE(R&D) Act, 2016 during the said period.
9.

The Respondent further submits that the major portion of the construction was already

completed, and sale deeds in respect of sixty-one (61) flats were executed and registered, with
possession handed over to the respective purchasers between 2016 till mid-August 2024.
Therefore, the Project was substantially completed and was not covered under RERA prior to
the amendment to the Telangana Rules. The allegation of non-registration prior to such
amendment is thus without merit or legal basis.
10.

The Respondent submits that subsequent to the amendment vide G.O.Ms. No. 60 dated

04.03.2025, the definition of “ongoing project” has been substituted to include all projects for
which the Occupancy Certificate or Completion Certificate has not been issued. In view of the
said amendment, the Respondent acknowledges that the Project now falls within the purview
of TG RERA and, as per Section 3(1) of the RE(R&D) Act, the promoter has a period of three
months (i.e., up to 04.06.2025) to complete the registration of the Project with the TG-RERA
Authority.
3

---

The Respondent finally submits that there has been no deliberate attempt to evade

compliance with the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016. The Respondent is in the process
of completing all necessary formalities to ensure registration within the stipulated period. In
light of the above facts and legal position, the Respondent prays that the Show Cause Notice
be dropped and requests an opportunity for a personal hearing to present further clarifications
and supporting documents before the Hon’ble Authority.
D. Counter on behalf of the Respondent:
12.

The Respondent respectfully submits that the Complainants have sought two reliefs,

payment of ₹75,000/- per month from June 2022 till delivery of the flat, and delivery of
possession of Flat No. 705 in the project “The Lake Towers.” It is further submitted that the
Complainants have not paid any consideration to the Respondent towards the purchase of Flat
No. 705 in the said project; hence, the Complaint is not maintainable under the provisions of
the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
13.

The first relief sought by the Complainant is beyond the scope and jurisdiction of this

Authority under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. It was contended
that the claim of ₹75,000/- per month, as referred to in Clause 3 of the Memorandum of
Understanding dated 23.12.2021, pertains solely to monthly rental value. The enforcement of
such contractual terms falls outside the ambit of RERA, which is limited to regulating the
obligations and duties of the promoter under the Act. Therefore, any such claim, if
maintainable, lies within the jurisdiction of the competent Civil Court and not before this
Authority.
14.

The second relief sought by the Complainant is untenable, as the Sale Deed dated

23.12.2021 clearly records that possession of the Schedule Property had already been delivered
to Complainant No.1. Therefore, the prayer seeking possession is devoid of merit and liable to
be rejected.
15.

The Respondent further stated that the Sale Deed shows that Mr. Ashish Kapoor was

the Vendor. However, he has not been impleaded as a Respondent. As possession was already
delivered under the Sale Deed, and since reliefs relate to possession, non-joinder of the Vendor
vitiated by non-joinder of a necessary party and requires to be dismissed in limien.
16.

Moreover, all averments in the Complaint are denied unless specifically admitted. The

project “Lake Towers” is partly complete and falls under the definition of “Ongoing Project”
4

---

The Complainant no.1s deny all allegations and averments made by the Respondent,

asserting that the same are false, baseless, and devoid of merit. Adverting to Para 1 of the
Counter, this is formal in nature and pertains only to authorization and knowledge of facts. The
Complainant no.1s submit that no reply is necessary.
18.

The Complainant No.1 submits that the Respondent, in the Counter, has merely

reiterated the reliefs claimed therein; hence, no specific reply is warranted in that regard.
Moreover, the allegation that no consideration was paid is false and untenable. As per the
Memorandum of Understanding dated 29.08.2020, the Respondent accepted an amount of
₹1,41,80,000/- from the Complainant No.1 towards part sale consideration of Flat No. 705 in
“The Lake Towers.” This amount had initially been paid towards the purchase of two shops at
S.D. Road, Secunderabad, and upon the Respondent’ failure to fulfil the said transaction, the
matter was amicably settled by allotting Flat No. 705 to the Complainant No.1. In pursuance
of this settlement, the Complainant No.1 withdrew Criminal Case No. 229/2019 pending before
the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana. Furthermore, the balance consideration was paid to the
financier, Mr. Ashish Kapoor, who executed and registered the Sale Deed dated 23.12.2021 in
favour of the Complainant No.1. The said Sale Deed clearly records the Respondent’ obligation
to complete the construction of the flat.
19.

Accordingly, the Complainant no.1 stated that the plea raised by the Respondent,

alleging that the reliefs sought are beyond the scope of RE (R&D) Act, is misconceived and
untenable. Under the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016,
any project exceeding 500 square metres in area or comprising more than eight apartments, and
which had not obtained a Completion Certificate prior to 01.05.2017, squarely falls within the
ambit of RERA. Sections 18 and 19 of the RE (R&D) Act cast a statutory obligation upon the
promoter to complete and deliver the project within the agreed timelines, failing which the
promoter becomes liable to pay interest and compensation to the allottee. Furthermore, Section
34(g) empowers this Authority to ensure due compliance with the provisions of the Act.
Therefore, the reliefs sought by the Complainant No.1 are well within the jurisdiction and
competence of this Authority.
5

---

The Complainant stated that the Respondent’ contention that possession has already

been delivered is misleading and incorrect. The Sale Deed dated 23.12.2021 itself records that
the Respondent, being the Developer, has continuing obligations to complete the construction
of Flat No. 705. While the undivided share of land was conveyed to the Complainant, the
construction of the flat remains incomplete. Therefore, the Respondent is bound to complete
the construction and deliver possession of the flat in accordance with the agreed specifications.
21.

The Complainant no.1 submitted that the objection raised by the Respondent regarding

the non-joinder of Mr. Ashish Kapoor is untenable. The Agreement of Sale and all subsequent
obligations arise solely between the Complainants and the Respondent, who is the Developer.
Mr. Kapoor was only a financier and has no role in the performance of the contractual
obligations. Hence, his inclusion is unnecessary for the adjudication of the present Complaint,
and the Respondent Company, represented by its director, is the proper and necessary party.
22.

The Complainant stated that the contention of the Respondent that the project “The Lake

Towers” falls outside the ambit of RERA is unsustainable. The said project clearly comes
within the purview of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, as the
Completion Certificate had not been obtained prior to 01.05.2017. Accordingly, all provisions
of the Act apply to the project, and the Respondent remains fully liable for compliance,
delivery, and compensation as mandated under law.
23.

The Complainant no.1 submitted that, in view of the foregoing facts and submissions,

the Counter filed by the Respondent is devoid of merit and lacks bona fides. The Complainant
therefore prays that the reliefs sought in the Complaint be granted in full in the interest of
justice and equity.
F. Points for Consideration:
24.

After deliberating upon the contentions of the parties and the documents filed by them,

the following issues sprout for consideration:
I.

Whether the present complaint is maintainable under RE(R&D) Act,2016 before this
Hon’ble Authority? If yes to what extent.

II.

Whether the Complainants are entitled to the relief(s) as prayed for? If yes, to what
extent?

6

---

Whether the Respondent has violated Section 3 and 4 of the RE (R&D) Act, 2016 and
the rules and regulations made thereunder?

G. Observations of Authority:
Point I
25.

This Authority has carefully examined the preliminary objections raised by the

Respondent regarding the maintainability of the present Complaint under the provisions of the
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The Respondent has primarily contended
that the Complaint is liable to be dismissed on two grounds, namely:
i.

that no sale consideration was paid by the Complainants to the Respondent towards the
subject flat, and therefore the Complainants do not qualify as “allottees” under the
RE(R&D) Act; and

ii.

that the Sale Deed dated 23.12.2021 was executed by one Mr. Ashish Kapoor, who has
not been impleaded as a party to the present proceedings, rendering the Complaint
defective for non-joinder of a necessary party.

26.

Per contra, the Complainants submit that they had originally entered into an Agreement

of Sale with the Respondent for purchase of two commercial shops bearing Nos. SF-45 and
SF-46 in the project “Alliance Bay” at Secunderabad, towards which the Respondent
admittedly received a sum of ₹1,41,80,000/-. As the Respondent failed to honour the said
transaction, criminal proceedings were initiated, which were subsequently settled amicably. In
pursuance of such settlement, the parties executed a Memorandum of Understanding dated
29.08.2020, whereby the Respondent agreed to adjust and allot Flat No. 705 in the project
“Lake Towers” to the Complainants, the said flat standing in the name of Mr. Ashish Kapoor.
It is submitted that the flat was thereafter registered in favour of the Complainants vide Sale
Deed No. 22213/2021 dated 23.12.2021, followed by execution of a consequential
Memorandum of Understanding on the same day, wherein the Respondent undertook to
complete the construction and hand over possession of the flat within the stipulated time.
27.

Upon perusal of the material placed on record, it is evident that under the Memorandum

of Understanding dated 29.08.2020, M/s P Cube Associates, represented by the Respondent in
their capacity as Managing Partners and developers, agreed to sell the subject flat to the
Complainants in substitution of the earlier commercial units. The total sale consideration was
agreed at ₹2,90,85,750/-, out of which the sum of ₹1,41,80,000/- already paid by the
7

---

The Sale Deed dated 23.12.2021 clearly records that the Respondent, being the developer

of the project, continued to bear the obligation of completing the construction of the flat and
providing the agreed amenities, including the third car parking. The contention of the
Respondent that no consideration was paid by the Complainants is, therefore, factually
incorrect and untenable. Having admitted the allotment of the unit, participated in the execution
of the Sale Deed, and undertaken post-registration obligations under the Memorandum of
Understanding dated 23.12.2021, the Respondent cannot now be permitted to contend that the
Complaint is not maintainable on the ground of absence of consideration.
29.

As regards the objection relating to non-joinder of Mr. Ashish Kapoor, this Authority

finds that the role of Mr. Ashish Kapoor was limited to that of a financier/vendor for the purpose
of registration of the flat. The Sale Deed itself records that all obligations relating to completion
of construction, delivery of possession, and provision of amenities rest solely upon the
Respondent as the promoter and developer. The consequential Memorandum of Understanding
dated 23.12.2021 was executed exclusively between the Complainants and the Respondent,
wherein the Respondent unequivocally undertook to complete the flat and hand over possession
in a habitable condition.
30.

Once the flat stood registered in favour of the Complainants, and the continuing

obligations of construction and delivery were assumed by the Respondent, Mr. Ashish Kapoor
ceased to have any role in the performance of the obligations forming the subject matter of the
present Complaint. In such circumstances, this Authority is of the considered view that Mr.
Ashish Kapoor is neither a necessary nor a proper party for the adjudication of the present
dispute, and the objection of non-joinder raised by the Respondent is devoid of merit.
31.

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Authority holds that the present Complaint is

maintainable under the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
The preliminary objections raised by the Respondent with respect to maintainability and nonjoinder of necessary party are accordingly rejected.

8

---

Upon careful consideration of the pleadings, documents placed on record, and the

Memorandum of Understanding and Sale Deed executed between the parties, this Authority
finds that the Respondent, having represented itself as the promoter and developer of the project
“Lake Towers,” had undertaken both contractual as well as statutory obligations to complete
the construction and deliver lawful possession of Flat No. 705 to the Complainants within the
stipulated timeframe. The material on record unequivocally establishes that, notwithstanding
the execution of the registered Sale Deed dated 23.12.2021, the subject flat remained
incomplete and that possession, as contemplated under Section 19(3) of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, was not delivered to the Complainants.
33.

The Respondent has not disputed that construction activity in respect of the subject flat

and the project was ongoing. The Respondent, however, seeks to rely solely upon a recital in
the Sale Deed to contend that possession stood delivered. This contention is untenable. A
conjoint reading of the Sale Deed dated 23.12.2021 and the Memorandum of Understanding
executed on the same day clearly records that the construction of the flat as well as the
remaining works of the project were incomplete and that the Respondent expressly undertook
to complete the construction within the agreed timelines. Once the Respondent has
acknowledged subsisting construction obligations under the Memorandum of Understanding,
it cannot be permitted to contend that possession stood lawfully delivered merely by execution
of the Sale Deed.
34.

This Authority reiterates that delivery of possession under the Real Estate (Regulation

and Development) Act, 2016 does not mean symbolic or paper possession. Possession can be
said to be lawfully delivered only when the unit is completed in all respects, strictly in
accordance with the sanctioned plans, agreed specifications, and contractual assurances, and is
fit for occupation. Until such completion, the allottee cannot be deemed to have received
possession within the meaning of the RE(R&D) Act.
35.

In view of the foregoing, this Authority holds that the Respondent remains under a

continuing obligation to complete all pending and remaining construction works pertaining to
Flat No. 705 and the project, and to hand over physical possession of the said flat to the
Complainants in a complete and habitable condition, strictly in accordance with the Sale Deed
and the Memorandum of Understanding dated 23.12.2021.

9

---

With regard to the claim for payment of monthly rent of ₹75,000/- per month towards

compensation for delay in handing over possession, as stipulated under the Memorandum of
Understanding dated 23.12.2021, this Authority observes that such claim falls within the ambit
of compensation under Section 71 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
The power to adjudicate and quantify compensation vests exclusively with the Adjudicating
Officer. Accordingly, this Authority refrains from expressing any opinion on the merits of the
said claim. The Complainants are at liberty to pursue the said relief, if so advised, by filing an
appropriate application before the Adjudicating Officer.
Point III
37.

This Authority now proceeds to examine the contention relating to the alleged violation

of Sections 3 and 4 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 by the
Respondent. The core issue that arises for consideration is whether the subject project,
admittedly lacking an Occupancy Certificate or Completion Certificate, was mandatorily
required to be registered under the Act, and whether the Respondent has failed to comply with
such statutory obligation.
38.

To appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to advert to the plain language of Section

3(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which reads as under:
3 (1)- No promoter shall advertise, market, book, sell or offer for
sale, or invite persons to purchase in any manner any plot,
apartment or building, as the case may be, in any real estate project
or part of it, in any planning area, without registering the real estate
project with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority established under
this Act:
Provided that projects that are ongoing on the date of
commencement of this Act and for which the completion certificate
has not been issued, the promoter shall make an application to the
Authority for registration of the said project within a period of three
months from the date of commencement of this Act
Provided further that if the Authority thinks necessary, in the
interest of allottees, for projects which are developed beyond the
planning area but with the requisite permission of the local
authority, it may, by order, direct the promoter of such project to
register with the Authority, and the provisions of this Act or the
rules and regulations made thereunder, shall apply to such projects
from that stage of registration.

10

---

A plain and harmonious reading of the above provision makes it abundantly clear that

any real estate project which was ongoing as on the date of commencement of the Act, and for
which no Completion Certificate or Occupancy Certificate had been issued, is mandatorily
required to be registered with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority. The statutory obligation
under Section 3 is absolute in nature and admits of no discretion on the part of the promoter.
40.

This Authority notes that Rule 2(1)(j) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and

Development) Rules, 2017, as originally notified vide G.O.Ms. No. 202 dated 31.07.2017,
defined “ongoing project” in a manner that excluded projects which had obtained building
permission prior to 01.01.2017. However, this Authority has consistently held that such
exclusion, being part of subordinate legislation, cannot override or dilute the substantive
mandate of Section 3 of the parent Act. It is a settled principle of law that rules framed under a
statute must yield to the provisions of the statute itself and cannot travel beyond or be
inconsistent with the legislative intent.
41.

This interpretation also finds authoritative support from the judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh
(supra), wherein it has been categorically held that the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 has retroactive application and applies to all projects which were
ongoing as on the date of commencement of the RE(R&D) Act and which had not received a
Completion Certificate.
42.

This Authority further takes judicial notice of G.O.Ms. No. 60 dated 04.03.2025 issued

by the Government of Telangana, whereby Rule 2(1)(j) of the Telangana Rules was amended
to bring it in consonance with the parent enactment. Post amendment, the expression “ongoing
project” has been defined as follows: Further, Rule 2(1)(j) of TG RE(R&D) Rules 2017 reads
as follows:
“Ongoing Project” means a Project where development is going on
and for which Occupancy Certificate or Completion Certificate
from the Competent Authority has not been issued as on the date
of coming into force as per subsection (1) of section 3 of the Real
Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016.

43.

In the light of the statutory provisions, authoritative judicial pronouncements, and the

subsequent amendment to the Rules, it is no longer open to the Respondent to contend that the
project stood exempted from registration merely on the ground that the building permission
11

---

It is observed that this Authority had issued Show Cause Notice No. D6/6057/2024/TG

RERA dated 25.04.2025 calling upon the Respondent to explain as to why action should not
be initiated under Sections 59 and 60 of the Act for failure to register the project. In response,
the Respondent reiterated its stand based on the pre-amended Rules and further stated that
construction was substantially completed and that Sale Deeds in respect of several units had
been executed.
45.

Upon scrutiny of the records, it is seen that the Respondent filed an application for

registration under Section 4 of the RE(R&D) Act on 05.06.2025, i.e., only after issuance of the
Show Cause Notice. A detailed examination of the said application reveals that the Respondent
failed to submit several mandatory documents as prescribed under Section 4 of the RE(R&D)
Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Despite being informed of the deficiencies and afforded
sufficient opportunity to rectify the same, the Respondent has failed to comply for a
considerable period thereafter.
46.

Such continued non-compliance, even after issuance of statutory notice and opportunity,

demonstrates wilful disregard of the mandatory obligations imposed under Sections 3 and 4 of
the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
47.

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Authority holds that the subject project is an

“ongoing project” within the meaning of Section 3(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 read with Rule 2(1)(j) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Rules, 2017, as amended, and that the Respondent has failed to comply with the
mandatory requirement of registration. The Respondent is therefore in violation of Sections 3
and 4 of the RE(R&D) Act.
48.

The Respondent is hereby directed to cure and comply with all the deficiencies and

shortfalls communicated by this Authority within a period of ten (10) days from the date of this
Order. In the event of failure to comply with the aforesaid direction within the stipulated period,
this Authority shall be constrained to initiate appropriate proceedings against the Respondent
in accordance with Sections 59, 60 and 63 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Act, 2016.

12

---

In light of the foregoing discussion, findings, and conclusions recorded hereinabove,

and in exercise of the powers conferred upon this Authority under Sections 37 and 38 of the
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the following directions are hereby
issued to the Respondent:
i.

The Respondent is hereby directed to immediately initiate and complete all formalities
necessary for obtaining registration of the project “The Lake Towers” under Sections 3
and 4 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Until such
registration is duly granted by this Authority, the Respondent shall not advertise,
market, book, sell, offer for sale, or invite persons to purchase any plot, apartment, or
unit in the project or any part thereof, in strict compliance with the statutory mandate.

ii.

The Respondent is hereby directed to forthwith comply with all the deficiencies and
shortfalls communicated by this Authority in relation to the Respondent’s application
for TG RERA registration and to submit all requisite documents, information, and
clarifications within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of this Order. Failure to
comply with the aforesaid directions within the stipulated period shall constrain this
Authority to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, for non-compliance with
statutory and regulatory directives.

iii.

The Respondent is further directed to complete the construction of Flat No. 705 in the
project “The Lake Towers” in accordance with the sanctioned plans and specifications
and to handover physical possession of the same to the Complainants within 90 (ninety)
days from the date of this order, in terms of registered Sale deed and the consequential
MoU-II dated 23.12.2021. All promised amenities and facilities pertaining to the flat
and the project shall be provided in full compliance with the provisions of the Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

iv.

With respect to the claim of compensation of monthly rent of ₹75,000/- as stipulated in
the MoU- II dated 23.12.2021, this Authority is of the considered view that such relief
falls within jurisdiction of Adjudicating officer under the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016.
13

---

Failing to comply with the above said directions by the Respondent shall attract penalty

in accordance with Section 63 of the RE (R&D) Act, 2016.
51.

The Complaint is disposed of in lieu of the above directions. No order as to costs.
Sd/-

Sd/-

Sd/-

Sri. K. Srinivasa Rao,
Hon’ble Member

Sri. Laxmi Naryana Jannu,
Hon’ble Member

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

TG RERA

TG RERA

TG RERA

14

---