Order Complaint No. 493 of 2025​

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 493 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

1. Shri. Annam Venkat Raevanth
2. Smt. Boda Neelima
R/o.:A-203, SriSairam Towers,
Manjeera Pipeline Rd,
Hafeezpet- 500050.
…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 final hearing on
12.11.2025 before this Authority in presence of Complainant and the Respondent. Upon
perusing 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
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.

It is submitted by the Complainants that they purchased a flat from Vasavi Lake City

in 2020 based on the advertisements, personal interactions with the Marketing Team, and the
information published on the builder’s website, all of which projected the project as a wellPage 1 of 24

---

It is submitted by the complainants that despite repeated assurances, the project has

faced continuous and unjustified delays, and as of July 2025, the project still remains
incomplete. The builder has repeatedly postponed the handover date, giving vague
explanations and failing to provide any clear or written timeline for completion. Each time
the complainants sought clarity regarding possession, they were given new dates and false
assurances without any corresponding progress at the site. It is submitted that the
complainants had already paid the full amount, and the prolonged delay has caused severe
uncertainty, financial strain, and disruption of their personal plans and investments.
3.

It is submitted by the complainants that as of July 2025, only 70% to 80% of the

construction had been completed, and thereafter no major work has been undertaken by the
builder. Crucial components such as interior finishing, common amenities, water and sewage
systems, electricity supply, and other supporting infrastructure remain incomplete. Despite
multiple follow-ups by the Complainants, the builder has failed to share any clear roadmap or
realistic completion schedule. The lack of visible progress and the absence of proper
communication from the builder have created deep anxiety among homebuyers and raised
doubts regarding the builder’s intention and capability to complete the project.
4.

It is submitted by the complainants that the continued delay in possession amounts to a

serious violation of RERA provisions, as the builder has failed to deliver the project within the
stipulated timeline without providing any justified reasons. The collection of nearly 90% of the
payment while failing to fulfill contractual and statutory obligations constitutes a clear breach
of RERA norms. The delay has not only caused significant financial hardship but has also
resulted in mental stress and emotional distress for the complainants and other homebuyers. In
light of the prolonged delay, lack of accountability, and absence of a firm completion date, the
complainants are constrained to file this complaint before RERA seeking urgent intervention,
financial compensation, and strict action against the builder to ensure justice and timely
completion of the project.
Page 2 of 24

---

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following reliefs:
a) To direct the Respondent to complete the remaining construction work and hand over
possession of my flat within a fixed, enforceable timeframe, as the delay has exceeded
the committed schedule despite 90% payment already being made.
b) To direct the Respondent to pay interest on the total amount paid by me, as mandated
under Section 18 of RERA, calculated from the promised possession date of August
2023 until the actual date of handover.
c) To direct the Respondent to compensate me for the mental agony, emotional distress,
and financial loss caused due to the prolonged delay, false assurances, and lack of
transparency in completing the project.
C. Counter filed by the Respondent:

6.

It is submitted by the Respondent that they have agreed to develop the project LAKE

CITY–WEST and have lawfully obtained the development rights from the landowners under
registered documents. It is further submitted by the Respondent that the landowners entrusted
a total extent of 43,298.17 sq. yds. for development of the residential project known as LAKE
CITY–WEST (“Project”). It is submitted by the Respondent that all requisite documents and
permissions were obtained from the landowners and the statutory authorities as required under
law.
7.

It is submitted by the Respondent that permission for land conversion and building

permission for construction of multi-storied residential apartments was granted on 07.02.2020.
The Project consists of Towers 1 to 7 having cellars + ground + 14 upper floors, and a
clubhouse consisting of stilt + 5 floors. It is submitted by the Respondent that the total land
utilised for the project is 40,869 sq. yds.
8.

It is submitted by the Respondent that after obtaining all permissions, the project was

duly registered before this Hon’ble Authority vide Registration No. P02500001819 dated
20.03.2020.
9.

It is submitted by the Respondent that the complainant booked Apartment No. W-30305

on 15-07-2020, situated on the 3rd floor in Tower No. 3, admeasuring 1865 sq. ft. with parking.
It is further submitted by the Respondent that the agreement specifies carpet area,
Page 3 of 24

---

It is submitted by the Respondent that the agreement entitles the Respondent to seek

extension of registration based on valid grounds. Construction commenced and periodic
updates regarding progress and amenities were provided to all allottees.
11.

It is submitted by the Respondent that the parties agreed that no alterations to the

sanctioned plan or specifications (Schedules D and E) shall be made. It is further submitted
that the complainant paid ₹23,58,405/- as booking amount, and the balance was to be paid as
per Schedule-C.
12.

It is submitted by the Respondent that Clause 5 and Clause 7 of the agreement clearly

provide that possession shall be given on or before 31.08.2023, subject to a grace period and
delays caused by Force Majeure. It is submitted that Force Majeure automatically extends the
commitment period, and during such period the allottee is not entitled to delay compensation.
13.

It is submitted by the Respondent that possession can be offered only after obtaining

the Occupancy Certificate, and the allottee must take possession within two months of such
offer. Clause 9 governs default and consequences.
14.

It is submitted by the Respondent that the present complaint is false, frivolous, and filed

with mala fide intent to secure unlawful gain. It is submitted that the complainants have
suppressed material facts and are attempting to mislead this Hon’ble Authority despite the clear
terms of the Agreement for Sale.
15.

It is submitted by the Respondent that the COVID-19 pandemic was an unprecedented

medical emergency causing nationwide lockdowns beginning March 2020. It is submitted that
the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a public health emergency, and
Government of India also imposed nationwide lockdowns affecting labour movement and
construction activities.
16.

It is submitted by the Respondent that the Hon’ble Supreme Court extended limitation

timelines under various statutes owing to COVID-19, which demonstrates the extraordinary
nature of the circumstances. The Respondent relies upon this to show that legally recognized
extensions applied to all sectors.
Page 4 of 24

---

It is submitted by the Respondent that the project received sanction on 07-02-2020, just

days before COVID-19 emerged as a national emergency. Migrant labourers forming the core
construction workforce returned to their native places due to lockdowns, which severely
impacted construction work.
18.

It is submitted by the Respondent that several other factors, including complete labour

evacuation and logistical restrictions, further delayed construction timelines. These delays were
periodically communicated to all allottees.
19.

It is submitted by the Respondent that the complainant’s allegations of repeated delays

are unfounded and not supported by evidence. Some clerical mistakes in the agreement cannot
be taken advantage of. It is reiterated that no project of this magnitude could have been
completed within the COVID-impacted period.
20.

It is submitted by the Respondent that the complaint contains baseless allegations made

only to harass the Respondent. The project registration valid up to 07-02-2025 was duly
extended by this Hon’ble Authority up to 07-02-2026.
21.

It is submitted by the Respondent that certain third-party disputes also affected project

timelines. The following cases were filed and contested, causing unavoidable delays:
(a) RERA Case No. 190/2020
(b) WP 2694/2021
(c) WP 13898/2022
(d) WP 33433/2023
(e) WA 584/2023
(f) SLP 9694-9695/2023
(g) WP 26301/2024 (pending)
22.

It is submitted by the Respondent that continuous communication was made to all

allottees explaining the reasons for delay and assuring phased completion and delivery.

Page 5 of 24

---

It is submitted by the Respondent that no interest can be claimed for the delay because

the delay falls squarely within Force Majeure as defined under Section 6 of RERA. The
Respondent was prevented by circumstances beyond its control.
24.

It is submitted by the Respondent that no compensation for mental agony or financial

loss is maintainable, as the complainant has failed to establish any causal connection or
evidence of deliberate delay by the Respondent.
25.

It is submitted by the Respondent that the flats shall be delivered on or before February

2026, in accordance with the extension granted by this Hon’ble Authority. More than 90% of
the work is completed, and allottees are being requested to pay the balance dues for final stages
of construction.
26.

It is submitted by the Respondent that the complainant agreed that COVID-19 was a

valid reason for delay. Additional site challenges such as rocky terrain requiring manual
excavation further contributed to delays, and these were informed to all allottees.
27.

It is submitted by the Respondent that the complainant is not entitled to any relief for

alleged delayed possession, since the causes for delay were beyond the control of the
Respondent.
28.

It is submitted by the Respondent that the complaint is frivolous, unfounded, and devoid

of legal basis and is liable to be dismissed. The Respondent reiterates their commitment to
completing and delivering the project as per the extended timeline.
D. Rejoinder filed by the Complainant:
29.

It is submitted by the complainant that the objection raised by the respondent is vague

and legally unfounded. It is submitted by the Complainant that the present complaint is
maintainable under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016,
which expressly empowers any aggrieved allottee to seek relief before this Hon’ble Authority.
30.

It is submitted by the Complainant that the Agreement of Sale dated 13-09-2021 clearly

stipulates the committed possession date as 31-08-2023, and that the flat remains undelivered
to date.

Page 6 of 24

---

It is submitted by the complainant that the respondent’s contention regarding internal

dispute-resolution mechanisms is misconceived and without merit.
32.

It is submitted by the complainant that the statutory right under Section 31 cannot be

ousted by any private clause and that the complainant has a clear right to approach this
Authority for delay in possession, violation of agreement terms and deficiency of services.
33.

It is submitted by the complainant that the complainant and other allottees approached

the respondent in good faith for clarity on possession, but were repeatedly given no definitive
timeline and were supplied shifting dates.
34.

It is submitted by the complainant that minutes of meetings and Form M are submitted

in support of this fact.
35.

It is submitted by the complainant that the repeated attempts to obtain a resolution were

met with avoidance tactics by the respondent.
36.

It is submitted by the complainant that the CRM team repeatedly disclaimed authority,

the leadership remained inaccessible, and the complainant was trapped in a cycle of blameshifting which effectively stonewalled resolution.
37.

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

respondent’s development rights, but does dispute the respondent’s failure to deliver
possession as contractually promised.
38.

It is submitted by the complainant that the complainant formally requested disclosure

of legal proceedings from the respondent by email, and that the respondent failed to furnish the
requested information.
39.

It is submitted by the complainant that while statutory approvals are acknowledged,

such approvals do not absolve the respondent from the contractual obligation to deliver
possession within the agreed timeline.
40.

It is submitted by the complainant that permission and registrations cannot be invoked

as a blanket excuse for non-performance.

Page 7 of 24

---

It is submitted by the complainant that although the project was registered with RERA

vide P02500001819 dated 20-03-2020, the respondent has failed to abide by the statutory duties
attached to such registration.
42.

It is submitted by the complainant that the respondent has failed to provide transparent

project updates, realistic possession timelines, and has ignored principles of accountability and
natural justice towards the allottees.
43.

It is submitted by the complainant that the Agreement of Sale dated 13-09-2021 governs

the parties’ rights and obligations and that the booking date alone is not determinative of the
possession obligation.
44.

It is submitted by the complainant that the complainant has paid ₹1,06,12,826

(including GST), which is 90% of the contract price, and that the balance is contractually
payable only upon handover of possession which has not occurred.
45.

It is submitted by the complainant that there is therefore no default on the part of the

complainant.
46.

It is submitted by the complainant that reliance on a RERA extension granted to the

promoter cannot negate the possession commitment under the Agreement of Sale dated 13-092021.
47.

It is submitted by the complainant that Section 19(2) of RERA entitles the allottee to

claim possession in accordance with the agreement for sale and that regulatory extensions do
not relieve the promoter from contractual liability to allottees.
48.

It is submitted by the complainant that the respondent’s proposed delivery date of

February 2026 amounts to an inordinate delay of nearly 2.5 years beyond the agreed deadline
and effectively renders the contract promise meaningless if accepted.
49.

It is submitted by the complainant that the payment of the booking amount (₹23,58,405)

is acknowledged but that the respondent’s attempt to shift focus to specifications and schedules
is irrelevant to the present grievance, which pertains to delay in possession.

Page 8 of 24

---

It is submitted by the complainant that the complainant has complied with payment

obligations in accordance with Schedule C and that any suggestion of payment default is
factually incorrect and misleading.
51.

It is submitted by the complainant that, having paid over 90% of the consideration, the

complainant is rightfully entitled to relief under Section 18(1) of RERA Act, 2016 for
unjustified delay.
52.

It is submitted by the complainant that compensation and interest are statutory remedies

for delay and must be considered irrespective of peripheral arguments about specifications or
clerical errors.
53.

It is submitted by the complainant that the respondent’s explanations (including

reference to COVID-19 and other site difficulties) have been selectively presented and do not
absolve the respondent from accountability for lack of transparent communication, nondisclosure of material facts, and failure to perform contractual obligations within the committed
timeline.
54.

It is submitted by the complainant that the conduct of the respondent post-registration

amounts to misrepresentation and non-compliance warranting appropriate relief.
55.

It is submitted by the complainant that the complainant therefore seeks that this Hon’ble

Authority grant reliefs for delayed possession, interest, and compensation as provided under
the Act, and that the respondent’s objections to maintainability and other technical pleas be
rejected.
56.

It is submitted by the complainants that the Agreement for Sale dated 13-09-2021

expressly commits the promoter to deliver possession of the apartment, along with ready and
complete common areas and all specified amenities and facilities, on or before 31-08-2023
(subject only to the six-month grace period and documented force majeure events).
57.

It is submitted by the complainants that the respondent has far exceeded even the six

month grace period and, as of July 2025, has still not delivered possession of the booked unit.
58.

It is submitted by the complainants that the respondent’s blanket reliance on “force

majeure” is legally and factually untenable because the Agreement of Sale was executed on

Page 9 of 24

---

It is submitted by the complainants that force majeure cannot be invoked retrospectively

to evade contractual liability, and that force majeure clauses cannot override the statutory rights
of allottees under Section 18(1) of the RERA Act which provides for interest for delayed
possession.
60.

It is submitted by the complainants that the respondent has not produced any

documentary evidence showing (a) actual invocation of force majeure at the relevant time, (b)
timely notifications to allottees, or (c) concrete mitigation steps taken to reduce delay — and
therefore the respondent’s plea must be rejected.
61.

It is submitted by the complainants that Clause 7.2 (possession procedure after issuance

of Occupancy Certificate) is inapplicable because, as on the date of filing the complaint, no
Occupancy Certificate has been produced and no written offer of possession has been made to
the complainant.
62.

It is submitted by the complainants that Clause 9 (events of default and consequences)

has been triggered by the respondent’s failure to deliver possession within the agreed date and
without valid justification, thereby attracting liability under the Agreement and under RERA.
63.

It is submitted by the complainants that the respondent’s allegations maligning the

complainant’s motives are baseless, defamatory and a deliberate attempt to divert attention
from the respondent’s failure to perform contractual obligations.
64.

It is submitted by the complainants that the complainant has made full and frank

disclosure of material facts, including the Agreement of Sale, payment receipts totalling
₹1,06,12,826 (over 90% of the sale consideration), minutes of meetings, written
correspondence and documented evidence of repeated delays.
65.

It is submitted by the complainants that the respondent’s focus on booking dates,

clerical errors or technicalities cannot absolve it from the primary obligation to hand over
possession in accordance with the executed Agreement dated 13-09-2021.

Page 10 of 24

---

It is submitted by the complainants that the respondent’s citation of statutory limitation

extensions and pandemic-era judicial orders is irrelevant to the promoter’s contractual duty
under RERA and the Agreement, and in any event does not justify continued non-performance
during 2023–2025 when construction activity across the city had substantially resumed.
67.

It is submitted by the complainants that the Tower 3 unit was structurally completed

over 24 months ago and that the lack of progress on finishing and handover since then
demonstrates mismanagement and lack of intent to deliver rather than a continuing labour or
force majeure problem.
68.

It is submitted by the complainants that the respondent has failed to provide transparent,

documented updates and realistic possession timelines to allottees, and that vague statements
of having “informed all allottees” are not a substitute for formal, verifiable communications.
69.

It is submitted by the complainants that the respondent’s reliance on a RERA

registration extension until February 2026 has no bearing on the complainant’s right to claim
possession or remedies for delay as per the Agreement and RERA Sections 18 and 19.
70.

It is submitted by the complainants that the complainant has suffered substantial

financial burden by paying over 90% of the consideration while continuing to bear rental and
other consequential expenses, and that such loss warrants interest and compensation under
Section 18(1) of the RERA Act.
71.

It is submitted by the complainants that the complainant is not seeking cancellation or

refund but only the statutory interest for unjustified delay and other appropriate reliefs remedies
to which the complainant is entitled under law.
72.

It is submitted by the complainants that the respondent has presented no credible

evidence to refute the complainant’s documentary proofs, and that the respondent’s generalized
denials and allegations of mala fide filing lack substance.
73.

It is submitted by the complainants that permitting the respondent to escape liability on

the present facts would undermine the protective purpose of the RERA framework and set a
dangerous precedent allowing promoters to breach possession commitments with impunity.

Page 11 of 24

---

It is submitted by the complainants that this Hon’ble Authority should therefore reject

the respondent’s technical and meritless objections, hold the respondent liable for delayed
possession, and grant the complainant reliefs including interest for delay and such other
directions as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances.
E. Points for Consideration
75.

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

as well as written, this Authority is of the view that the following issues arise for determination
in the present complaint:
1. Whether the present complaint is maintainable before this Authority?
2. Whether the Complainants are entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?
F. Observations of the Authority:
Point 1:
76.

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. The Authority finds this objection
untenable for the following reasons:
77.

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.”
78.

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.

Page 12 of 24

---

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.
80.

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.
81.

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.

Page 13 of 24

---

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

701 of 2015, decided on 13.07.2017), it was held that arbitration clauses in builder-buyer
agreements cannot oust the jurisdiction of consumer fora. The said view was later upheld by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 23512–23513 of 2017. The relevant para
reads:
“25. This Court in the series of judgments as noticed above considered the provisions
of Consumer Protection Act, L986 os well as Arbitration Act, 1996 and laid down that
complaint under Consumer Protection Act being a special remedy, despite there being
an arbitration agreement the proceedings before Consumer Forum have to go on and
no error committed by Consumer Forum on rejecting the application. There is reason
for not interjecting proceedings under Consumer Protection Act on the strength an
arbitration agreement by Act, 1996. The remedy under Consumer Protection Act is a
remedy provided to a consumer when there is a defect in any goods or services. The
complaint means any allegation in writing made by a complainant has also been
explained in Section 2(c) of the Act. The remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is
confined to complaint by consumer as defined under the Act for defect or deficiencies
caused by a service provider, the cheap and a quick remedy has been provided to the
consumer which is the object and purpose of the Act as noticed above."
83.

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, 2016.
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:

Page 14 of 24

---

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

delay in handing over possession of the subject flat. It is the case of the Complainants where
Agreement of Sale was executed on 13.09.2021 between the parties, clearly stipulated that
possession of the subject flat would be handed over by 31.08.2023, with a grace period of six
months, ending on 28.02.2024. The Respondent has failed to hand over possession even as on
date. Further, although the project was registered with TG RERA up to February 2025 and later
extended until 07.02.2026, the project remains incomplete.
85.

The Complainants submit that the Respondent has repeatedly given false assurances of

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

Whether the Covid-19 pandemic can be taken as a valid shield by the Respondent
in the present case?

86.

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

on 13.09.2021, well after the onset and subsiding of the Covid-19 pandemic. Having
consciously undertaken such commitment, the Respondent cannot now, with retrospective
justification, rely on Covid-19 as a defence to escape its contractual and statutory obligations.
Such conduct clearly amounts to holding out false assurances with mala fide intent.
87.

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 31.08.2023 and six months of grace period.
88.

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:

Page 15 of 24

---

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.
90.

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 the year 2021 with
specific possession timelines, cannot now seek to retrospectively attribute delays to the
pandemic. Accordingly, this Authority holds that the reliance on Covid-19 as a shield stands
rejected.
iii)
91.

Extension of Registration
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.
At the outset, it must be clarified that under the scheme of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
“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.”
92.

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
Page 16 of 24

---

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, 2016.
94.

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”
95.

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.
96.

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.
Page 17 of 24

---

It is observed as per the records furnished before this Authority that the entire sale

consideration is for an amount of Rs. 1,12,30,500/- (Rupees One Crore Twelve Lakh Thirty
Thousand Five Hundred Only). As per the Agreement of Sale executed between the parties it
is noted that a sum of Rs. 23,58,405/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakh Fifty Eight Thousand Four
Hundred And Five Only) has been paid by the Complainants. However, as per the receipts
produced before this Authority it is observed that a sum of Rs. 1,06,12,823/- (Rupees One Crore
Six Lakh Twelve Thousand Eight Hundred And Twenty Three Only) has been duly paid by the
Complainant towards the sale consideration. The Agreement of Sale unequivocally stipulates
that possession was to be delivered by 31.08.2023, with a grace period of six months, i.e., up
to 28.02.2024. Admittedly, possession has not been delivered within the stipulated period.
98.

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 over 90% 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 months
has elapsed beyond the stipulated date, yet the project is neither complete nor possession
handed over.
99.

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.”
100.

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
Page 18 of 24

---

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.
102.

Now, Section 18 of the RE(R&D) Act is categorical:
“(1) If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment,
plot or building,—
(a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly
completed by the date specified therein; or
(b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or
revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable
on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project,
without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him
in respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such
rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner as
provided under this Act:
Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, he shall
be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of the
possession, at such rate as may be prescribed.
(2) The promoter shall compensate the allottees in case of any loss caused to him due
to defective title of the land, on which the project is being developed or has been
developed, in the manner as provided under this Act, and the claim for compensation
under this subsection shall not be barred by limitation provided under any law for the
time being in force.

Page 19 of 24

---

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."
104.

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."
105.

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

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

Page 20 of 24

---

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.
107.

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.
108.

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

RE(R&D) Act, 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.
109.

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.
110.

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

“greater accountability towards consumers and to inject transparency, efficiency, and
discipline in the real estate sector”. The conduct of the Respondent herein is in gross
derogation of that legislative mandate. If such violations are permitted to persist, the very soul
of the Act would stand diluted and the protection promised to allottees rendered illusory.
111.

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

further default, non-compliance, or failure to deliver possession within the assured statutory
Page 21 of 24

---

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.
113.

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.
114.

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.
115.

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:
116.

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 22 of 24

---

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.
118.

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

Page 23 of 24

---

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.
120.

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 24 of 24

---