Order Complaint No. 50 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 50 of 2024
Dated this 31st day of January 2025
Corum:
Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.),Hon’ble Chairperson
Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Hon’ble Member
Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu, Hon’ble Member
Satheesh Muvva
…Complainant
Versus
M/s Sri Surya Developers

…Respondents

This present complaint, came up for hearing on 18.10.2024 before us
for hearing in the presence of Complainant represented by Shri N. Sankara
Rao and counsel Mr. A. Muralidhar Reddy for Respondent and upon hearing
both the arguments on both sides and

the matter reserved over for the

consideration till this date,this Authority passes the present complaint
order.
ORDER
2.

The complaint has been filed under Section 31 of the Real Estate

(Regulation and 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"), alleging commission of violation and contravening of the provisions
of the said Act and Rules and sought for the appropriate reliefs against the
Respondent.
A. The Brief facts of the case as per allegations/averments contained in
the complaint are as follow:
3.

The complainant, Mr. Satheesh Muvva, purchased Plot No. 312 in the

“True Pride Bacharum” project by Sri Surya Developers, situated in Sy. No.
73/A, 74/A, 75 & 76 in Bacharam Village, Ranga Reddy District. The
developer assured that the plot would be handed over on time with all
promised amenities. However, to date, the Respondent has failed to deliver
possession to the complainant.

1 of 7

B. Relief(s) sought:
i.

Direct the Respondent to deliver the plot with all amenities as

promised at the time of sale.
C. Counter filed by the respondent:
4.

The Respondent submits that the project in question, namely “True

Pride Bacharam,” was duly registered with TGRERA under Registration No.
P02400001545. This registration was granted under Section 5 of the
RE(R&D) act and remained valid from 27th December 2019 to 2nd
November 2022. Prior to obtaining TGRERA registration, the Respondent
had also secured approval from the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development
Authority

(HMDA)

for

the

layout,

vide

Letter

No.

301160/LO/Plg/HMDA/2016. Under the terms of said HMDA permission,
the project was required to be completed within three years from the date of
issuance of that approval.
5.

Upon expiry of the initial HMDA-permitted timeframe, the Respondent

applied on 20th February 2023 for revalidation/extension of one year before
the

Commissioner,

HMDA.

This

application

is

presently

pending

consideration. The Respondent maintains that it remains committed to
completing the project at the earliest once the requisite extension is duly
granted.
6.

The Respondent emphatically denies any deliberate delay in project

completion. It is submitted that the unforeseen outbreak of the COVID-19
pandemic in March 2020 caused nationwide lockdowns and severe
disruptions in the real estate and construction sectors. Even after the easing
of restrictions, the acute shortage of labor and disrupted supply chains
further impeded progress. The Respondent made concerted efforts to resume
construction, but these external factors particularly the lack of manpower
hampered the pace of development beyond its control.
7.

The Respondent further submits that the expiration of TGRERA

registration on 2nd November 2022 coincided with the period of COVIDrelated disruptions, and this circumstance prevented any timely completion
2 of 7

or substantial progress. The Respondent, therefore, prays for a reasonable
extension to complete all pending works. It is also averred that certain
market-value or valuation disputes raised by external parties are extraneous
to the issue at hand and have no direct bearing on the project’s final
completion. Accordingly, the Respondent seeks dismissal of the present
complaint and prays for a six-month extension from the date of receiving
HMDA’s extended permission to fully deliver the project to the satisfaction of
all stakeholders.
D. Points for consideration are as follow:
I.
Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought? If yes, to
what extent?
E.Observation by the authority:
8.

After thoroughly examining the submissions and evidence presented

by both parties, the Authority makes the following observations:
9.

Upon perusal of the under mentioned para of the sale deed dated 8th

January,2021 which was entered into by the complainant and the
respondent for plot no. 312 covering an area of 156 yards reads as
hereunder:
“WHEREAS the Vendor A.S.G.P.A. Holder has already received from
the said Vendee the said consideration Rs. 2,34,000/- (Rupees two
lakhs and thirty four thousand only), through Online Transfer, Vide
Ref No. RRR062117578360, dated 06-01-2021, the Vendor A.S.G.P.A.
Holder do hereby admit and acknowledges the receipt of the said sum
and also delivered the Possession of the land to the said Vendee to
Have and to Hold the same absolutely forever.”

10.

As per the abovementioned para from the sale deed, it is evident that

the complainant has paid total sale consideration of Rs. 2,34,000 (Rupees
two lakhs and thirty four thousand only) and also that the respondent has
delivered the possession of the land in question to the complainant. On the
other hand respondent’s reliance on COVID-19 for the delay substantiates

3 of 7

the complainant’s claim that the Respondent is yet to handover the
possession.
11.

The key question, therefore, is whether the complainant’s contention

can be sustained. If the sale deed purports that “possession” was delivered
to the complainant, the Respondent would not rely on COVID-19 for the
delay of handing over the possession substantiating the complainant’s claim
Given the material on record before the Authority, it is evident that physical
possession of the flat, with all assured works completed, was handed over to
the complainant as claimed. Thus, in all probability, the inference that can
be drawn is that the possession mentioned in the sale deed was merely
symbolic, intended solely for the purpose of registering the sale deed, and
not actual physical possession. Hence, complainant’s contention that the
possession is not delivered to him by the Respondent in all probability
appears to be true and sustainable and as such the same is sustained and
establishes that the Respondent failed to deliver the possession as the
agreed timelines.
11.

Further, the Respondent contended that due to COVID-19 pandemic

led to a labour shortage, preventing timely completion. While this Authority
acknowledges the unprecedented disruptions caused by the pandemic in the
real estate sector, the Respondent was nonetheless obligated to either
complete the project or demonstrate substantial progress within the
registration period. The Respondent’s registration expired on November 2,
2022, requiring the project to be completed within the validity period.
Alternatively, the Respondent ought to have sought an extension under
Section 6 of the RE(R&D) Act, which allows for an extension only in force
majeure circumstances. The failure to apply for such an extension within
the prescribed timeframe constitutes a breach of statutory obligations,
thereby making the Respondent liable for non-compliance with the RE(R&D)
Act.
12.

The authority also finds that the respondent’s conduct amounts to

contravention of Section 18 of the RE(R&D) act reads as hereunder:

4 of 7

(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.

13.

As per section 18(1), the promoter is liable if he fails to deliver

possession as per the agreement or within the stipulated timeline. If the
allottee withdraws from the project, the promoter must refund the amount
received with prescribed interest and compensation. But, if the allottee
chooses to remain, the promoter must pay monthly interest for the delay
until possession is handed over. This liability ensures the protection of
allottee rights and compels the promoter to fulfil their obligations promptly,
regardless of the cause of delay.
14.

In the case of M/s Imperia Structures Ltd. Vs. Anil Patni & Ors.

[Civil Appeal No. 3581-3590 of 2020] it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court
that:
"23. In terms of Section 18 of the RERA Act, if a promoter
fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an
apartment duly completed by the date specified in the
agreement, the promoter would be liable, on demand, to
return the amount received by him in respect of that
apartment if the allottee wishes to withdraw from the
project. Such right of an allottee is specifically made
'without prejudice to any other remedy available to him.'
The right so given to the allottee is unqualified, and if
availed, the money deposited by the allottee has to be
refunded with interest at such rate as may be prescribed.
The proviso to Section 18(1) contemplates a situation

5 of 7

where the allottee does not intend to withdraw from the
Project. In that case he is entitled to and must be paid
interest for every month of delay till the handing over of
the possession. It is upto the allottee to proceed either
under Section 18(1) or under proviso to Section 18(1)."

15.

Thus, Section 18 of RE(R&D) act recognises allottees' right to interest

while delay in possession and within stipulating time limit for taking steps
to seek relief as provided thereunder. Section 18 of RE(R&D) act casts
obligation on promoter that in case of delay in possession, he shall be liable
in case allottee does not wish to withdraw from the project. Pay interest on
the amount paid by allottee. The Hon'ble Apex Court while explaining the
scope of right of allottee under Section 18 of RE(R&D) act in M/s Newtech
Promoters [Civil Appeal N0s.5745, 6749 and 6750 to 6757 of 2021)
has held in paragraph 25 as under"The unqualified right of the allottee to seek a refund referred
to under Section 18(1)(a) and Section 19(4) of the Act is not
dependent on any contingencies or stipulations thereof. It
appears that the legislature has consciously provided this
right of refund on demand as an unconditional absolute right
to the allottee, if the promoter fails to give possession of the
apartment, plot, or building within the time stipulated under
the terms of the agreement regardless of unforeseen events or
stay orders of the Court/ Tribunal, which is in either way not
attributable to the allottee/home buyer, the promoter is under
an obligation to refund the amount on demand with interest at
the rate prescribed by the State Government including
compensation in the manner provided under the Act with the
proviso that if the allottee does not wish to withdraw from the
project, he shall be entitled for interest for the period of delay
till handling over possession at the rate prescribed"

16.

Thus, basing on above interpretations by the Hon’ble Supreme court

and also upon section 18(1)(a) of the RE(R&D) Act, it is evident that a
promoter is liable for failing to complete or hand over possession of the
allotted unit by the date specified in the agreement for sale or sale deed. In
the present case, the complainant has sought delivery of the property, which
prima facie means that the complainant has clearly chosen to remain in the
project. Hence,the respondent is obligated, under 18(1)(a) and proviso, to

6 of 7

pay interest on the entire paid amount for the period of delay until
possession is handed over.
17.

Regarding the Respondent’s prayer for a six-month extension from the

date of HMDA revalidation, the Authority finds no merit in granting it. The
Respondent failed to utilize the extension mechanism under Section 6 in a
timely manner and has not demonstrated sufficient due diligence. Therefore,
the request is rejected.
F. Directions of the authority:
18.

Based on the facts, evidence on record, and the findings as discussed

above, this Authority hereby directs as follows:
19.

The Respondent shall complete the remaining development work of

plot no. 312 in “True Pride Bacharum” including all basic amenities, and
hand over possession to the Complainant within 45 (forty five) days from the
date of receipt of this order.
20.

In accordance with Section 18(1) of the RE(R&D) Act and Rule 15 of

the Telangana Rules, the Respondent shall pay the Complainant interest at
the rate of SBI MCLR - 9.0 + 2% = 11% per annum on the principal amount
of Rs. 2,34,000/-, commencing from 06th January 2021 (the date
mentioned in the sale deed) until the date of actual handing over of
possession.All accrued interest shall be remitted to the Complainant within
30 days from the date of this Order.
21.

In the event of non-compliance with these directions, the complainant

shall be at liberty to seek enforcement action under Section 40 of the Act or
any other permissible remedy.
22.

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

SdSri. K. Srinivas Rao,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

SdSri. Laxmi Narayana Jannu,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

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

7 of 7