Order Complaint No. 631 of 2021

TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
COMPLAINT NO.631 OF 2021
Date of Decision:09.08.2023
M. Sridhar Reddy & Others

…Complainants
Versus

M/s Vrise Builders & Developers LLP

…Respondents

Quorum:

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

Appearance:

Mr. M. Srinivas Rao, Mr. L. Srinivas, Mr. M. Sridhar Reddy, Mr.
Thirpathi Rao, Mr. Ravinder Rao and Mr. Malla Reddy for the
Complainants.
Mr. Srinivas Reddy S/o Anji Reddy for the Respondent.
ORDER

The present Complaint has been filed under Section 31 of the Real Estate
(Regulation and 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”).

A. Facts of the Complaint:
2.

That the matter had been taken up on hearing before this Authority on

09.08.2023, and the Complainant submitted that they had purchased flats in
SHAMALA ANJI REDDY (SAR) MARVEL (hereinafter referred to as the “Project”)
from M/s Vrise Builders and Developers LLP headed by Mr. S. Anji Reddy, Mr. S.
Laxman Reddy, Mr. S. Srinivas Reddy and Mr. S. Sandeep Reddy during the year
2020-21. All of the Complainants herein have admittedly occupied the flats
between November 2020 to April 2021 though the Respondent/Builder was still
tasking up minor repair works in the apartment.

1 of 12

3.

That the Project occupies 842 sq. yds. (701.10 Sq Mtrs) with 10 flats of

2302.5 Sq Ft each. This area includes common areas and one car parking each
with an undivided share of 82.40 Sq Yds per each flat owner. That further, out of
the 10 (ten) flats in the Project, the Respondent/Builder has kept 3 (three) flats on
their name.

4.

That the Complainants have contended that the Builder has violated

Sections 3, 4, 11 and 14(3) of the RERA Act, 2016 as he has not given the
Complainants any brochure nor the RERA Registration Number before the sale of
the apartments. That further, as regards Sanction Plan for competent authorities is
concerned, there are deviations from the same such as proper slope is not
maintained at the roof slab resulting in roof leakage between the flat Nos.501 and
502, corridors not cleaned, buffing has to be done to the steel railing, documents of
equipment like generator and CC cameras etc., are not handed over so far.

5.

He vehemently contends that without following the safety norms such as a

fire safety system/fire-fighting installation for the entire Project, as prescribed by
GHMC, he has obtained Occupancy Certificates for the Complainants/Flat Owners.

6.

He adds that the GHMC approved drawing shows a total of 12 (twelve)

parking spaces. However, in deviation to it, the Respondent/Builder has
constructed only 11 parking spaces. That the Respondent/Builder orally promised
for 1 parking space for each flat owner being 10 parking spaces in total and the
11th parking space to be used commonly by all flat owners for 2 wheeler parking.

2 of 12

7.

To contradict his own promise, the Respondent/Builder has kept 4 parking

spaces to himself against 3 flats owned by him and left the rest 7 parking spaces to
be divided amongst the flat owners. Further, no lottery system has been followed in
allotting the parking spaces as was promised by him.

8.

He further submits that for all 10 identical flats, the undivided share is same

i.e., 82.4 Sq Yds. However, Smt. S. Sujatha W/o Mr. S. Anji Reddy has registered
the Flat No.201 with 2302.5 Sq Ft + 150 Sq Ft + 150 Sq Ft = 2603 Sq Ft with 2 car
parking, Mr. S. Laxman Reddy has registered Flat No.301 with 2302.5 Sq Ft + 200
Sq Ft = 2502.5 Sq Ft and Mr. S. Sandeep Reddy has registered Flat No.401 with
2302.5 Sq Ft + 200 Sq Ft = 2502.5 Sq Ft. In this regard, the Complainant
highlights that all have claimed the undivided share of 82.40 Sq Yds only i.e.,
2302.5 Sq Ft itself includes car parking and common areas.

9.

The Complainant vehemently argues that when undivided share is same i.e.,

82.40 Sq Yds for all 10 (ten) identical flats with same carpet area, registering 3
(three) flats owned by the Respondent/Builder at size over and above 2302.5 Sq Ft
in contravention of GHMC guidelines is a clear case of irregularity on part of the
Respondent Builder. He accordingly prayed to modify the registration documents of
the Respondents with correct Sq Ft and to allot the 10 (ten) car parking areas by
lottery system and 1 parking area may be allotted for parking of two wheelers.

B. Relief sought:
10.

That in the interim, the Complainants have prayed for the allotment of

parking’s slots be done by lottery system and one parking slot be allotted for two
wheeler parking. Further to direct the Respondents to rectify the roof repairs and
provide fire safety measures in the building.

3 of 12

11.

The present complaint has been filed seeking following reliefs:
“(a) the allotment of the car parking slots may be done by lottery
system and one parking slot may be allotted for two wheeler parking
by rectifying the repairs as mentioned as per clause 14.3 of the RERA
Act.
(b) Fire safety norms may be taken up as per National Building Code of
India, 2005 as mentioned in the guidelines of GHMC”

12.

That subsequently, Notice dated 17.11.2021 was issued by this Authority to

the Respondents communicating the various reliefs sought by the Complainants
and sought for a Reply on the contentions raised by the Complainant duly
annexing relevant documents and substantiating evidences or such other
information as required with a copy to the Complainant.

13.

A representation dated 24.02.2022 was issued by the Complainants,

bringing to the knowledge of the Authority that no action has been taken by the
Respondents with respect to the present Complaint and sought for taking matter
further ahead.

14.

Considering the facts and circumstances, a Show Cause Notice was issued

on 19.02.2022 by this Authority, asking the Respondents, why penalty ought not to
be imposed on them for violation of Section 3(1) and 4(1) of the Act, 2016.

C. Reply on behalf of the Respondent:

4 of 12

15.

Per contra, vide Reply dated 01.12,2021 and 02.12.2021, the Respondents

have submitted that Sri Anji Reddy was originally the owner and possessor of the
open land admeasuring 1360 Sq Yds or 1136.96 Sq Mts in Sy No.33 situated at Pet
Basheerabad Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, under GHMC Circle, Ranga Reddy
District. He got the said property under a registered partition deed bearing
document No.635/2015 dated 13.01.2015, and out of the said land he alienated
part of the property i.e., land admeasuring 521.33 Sq Yds to the prospective
purchaser under registered sale deed bearing document No.26985 of 2018 dated
14.12.2018 and has retained land admeasuring 838.67 Sq Yds.

16.

Thereafter,

the

Respondent

entered

into

a

registered

Development

Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney for development of the said land with
M/s Vrise Builders and Developers vide Document No.4779//2019 dated
25.02.2019 for construction of residential complex under the name and style of
“SAR MARVEL” (hereinafter referred to as the “Project”) consisting of silt + 5 upper
floors for mutual benefit of both the parties as per the existing rules for an area
admeasuring 824.37 Sq Yds out of the total extent of 838.67 Sq Yds. That in the
said Agreement, it was agreed that upon construction 40% of the built up area
inclusive of all common areas, balcony areas, circulation areas shall be retained by
the Respondent and the 60% built up area was to be taken by the developer. He
added that though development agreement was entered for land admeasuring
824.37 Sq Yds, building permission was applied for land admeasuring 838.67 Sq
Yds.

17.

That the Respondent applied for building permission and the same was

sanctioned on 02.03.2019 vide file No.2/C25/00220/2019 and Permit No.
2/C25/03624/2019. The developer completed the construction as per the terms of

5 of 12

the Development Agreement dated 25.02.2019 and have obtained the occupancy
certificate for the same on 01.02.2021. Flat Nos.201, 202, 301 and 401 have fallen
to the share of the Respondent and flat Nos.101, 102, 302, 402, 501 and 502 have
fallen to the share of the developer, respectively.

18.

That subsequently, the Respondent gifted flats which belonged in his share

under registered gift deeds to his family members as follows:
(1) Gift deed bearing No.20188/2021 to Smt. Samala Sujatha (wife) dated
19.07.2021 for flat No.201; and
(2) Gift deed bearing No.20186/2021 to Samala Laxma Reddy (Son) dated
19.07.2021 for flat No.301; and
(3) Gift deed bearing No.20187/2021 to Samala Sandeep Reddy (Son) dated
19.07.2021 for flat No.401.

19.

The Respondent submitted that he also executed sale deed bearing

document No.18771/2021 dated 07.07.2021 in favour of Sri G. Rajasimha Rao
selling flat No.202 in his favour. He added that similarly, the Developer sold his
share of flats to the Complainants herein.

20.

It was categorically submitted by the Respondent that the purchasers from

the share of Developer have filed this complaint seeking allotment of car parking
slots by lottery system. In this regard, he submits that the Complainants have been
allotted one car parking along with the flat they have purchased along with
proportionate share in the common area and have been parking their respective
vehicles in the allotted space. It was also submitted that there was no oral
assurance given by the Respondent for allotting 1 car parking for common use
which is also evident from the sanction plan approved by GHMC.

6 of 12

21.

He adds that it is not the case of the complainant that any common area of

the residential apartment have been converted into car parking and is utilised by
the Respondent, however, it is specifically mentioned in the Sale Deed that the
purchaser has no right and no objection to extra car parking. The Respondent
further submitted that the Respondent has rectified all the complaints raised with
regard to structural deficiencies in the residential apartments and there is no
obligation on their part to allot one car parking for two wheelers as we have not
given any oral assurances for the same.

22.

That with regard to Fire Safety norms, the Respondent submitted that as per

Circular Memorandum dated 03.06.2017 vide R.C. No.15009/MSB/CR/RR/2013,
the residential apartment i.e., the Project, is not covered under Section 13 of the
Telangana Fire Services Act, 1999 and therefore, there is no requirement to obtain
NOC from the Fire Department. He substantiates the same by stating that the
height of the apartment is 14.75 meters as per the GHMC sanction plan and the
same is constructed without any deviations. He concluded by submitting that the
present Complaint is false and without any base to compel the Respondents to part
with car parking which have been duly fallen to the share of the Respondents.

D. Jurisdiction of the Authority:
23.

Further, this Authority observes that it has subject matter jurisdiction to

adjudicate the present matter as Section 34(f) empowers this Authority to ensure
compliance of the obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the real
estate agents under this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder. As the
present complaint raises issues with regard to non-compliance of the promoters’

7 of 12

obligations provided under Sections 3(1), 4(1) and 14(1) of the Act, this Authority
has complete subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the present matter.

E. Points for consideration by this Authority:
24.

After consideration of the facts and circumstances of the present case,

following issues sprout for consideration before this Authority:

(i)

Whether the Project is “On-going” as per Rule 2(j) of the Rules, 2017? If
yes, then whether Respondents/Builders have violated Section 3(1) and
4(1) of the Act?

(ii)

Whether Respondents/Builders have violated Section 14(1) of the Act?

(iii)

Whether the Complainant’s relief, as prayed for, be granted, if yes, to
what extent?

Point (i)
25.

Let us first understand whether the Project is an on-going project. An on-

going project, as per Rule 2(j), is a project where development is going on and for
which Occupancy Certificate or Completion Certificate has not been issued. Though
Occupancy Certificates have been obtained in 01.02.2021 as per record,
admittedly, the Building Permit Order is obtained by the Respondents on
02.03.2019

under

File

No.2/C25/00220/2019

and

Permit

No.

2/C25/03624/2019. Hence, the Project is considered as an on-going project as the
Building Permit Order is obtained by the Respondents only on 02.03.2019.
However, no application was made to this Authority for registration
subsequent to obtaining the permit and no sufficient explanation has been
provided by the Respondent/Builder as regards why the application was not made.

26.

Section 3 and 4 of the Act provide as under:

8 of 12

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.

4. (1) Every promoter shall make an application to the Authority for
registration of the real estate project in such form, manner, within such
time and accompanied by such fee as may be specified by the regulations
made by the Authority.

27.

Plain reading of the above-quoted provision clearly portrays that the

Respondent/Builder has violated the above provision by not registering the Project

9 of 12

and also by advertising, booking, selling, etc., the apartments in the said Project.
Therefore, this Authority, vide its powers under Section 59 of the Act, imposes a
penalty of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) on each flat so sold without
registering before this Authority payable in favor of TS RERA FUND within 30 days
of the receipt of this Order by the Respondents/Builders. In addition, this Authority
also directs the Respondent/Builder to register the said Project before this
Authority within 30 days of the receipt of this Order so as to comply with the
provisions of Section 14(3) of the Act, 2016.

Point (ii)
28.

Section 14(1) of the Act provides as under:

14. (1) The proposed project shall be developed and completed by the
promoter in accordance with the sanctioned plans, layout plans and
specifications as approved by the competent authorities.

29.

The Complainants have contended that the Respondents have violated

Section 14(1) by (a) not conforming to Fire Safety Norms and (b) by not allotting one
extra car parking as common area to all the residents i.e., the Complainants. In
this regard, the Respondent rightly submitted that they have been excluded from
obtaining NOC from the Fire Department in light of the Circular Memorandum
dated 03.06.2017 vide R.C. No.15009/MSB/CR/RR/2013, read with Section 13 of
the Telangana Fire Services Act, 1999, as the height of the apartment is 14.75 as
per the Building Permit Order issued by GHMC. This is also further substantiated
by the vital fact that the Occupancy Certificate has also been issued by the GHMC
after scrupulously verifying the required safety norms in the building premises.
However, as per the GHMC Building Guidelines, the Builder is hereby directed to

10 of 12

ensure that sprinklers are installed and are in working condition in the stilt floor
parking area to ensure fire safety for the residents/allottees.

30.

Now as regards, one extra parking which is sought for use as “common area”

by the Complainants, it is pertinent to look into the GHMC Sanction Plan. In the
said Sanction Plan, the 11th parking space is identified as a “Parking Space” and
not as a “Common Area”. Therefore, since the Respondents are disabled from
deviating from this Sanction Plan, the 11th parking space cannot be utilised for
“common use” by all the residents but only as another parking space in line and
conformity with the GHMC Sanction Plan.

Point (iii)
31.

As regards reliefs are concerned, it is stated that this Authority endeavored

to bring about a quietus in the disagreements between the parties and has, during
the course of hearing on 16.08.2023, directed the Respondents to undertake lottery
system to allot parking slots to the residents/complainants herein and the
Respondent has agreed to undertake the same. Further, as regards Fire Safety
Norms are concerned, this Authority has dealt with the same above and therefore,
no specific directions are given by the Authority in this regard.

F. Directions of the Authority:
32.

In lieu of the above-made findings and directions, the present complaint

stands disposed of. The parties are hereby informed that failure to comply with this
Order shall attract Section 63 of the Act.

33.

If aggrieved by this Order, the parties may approach the TS Real Estate

Appellate Tribunal (vide G.O.Ms.No.8, Dt.11-01-2018, the Telangana State Value

11 of 12

Added Tax Appellate Tribunal has been designated as TS Real Estate Appellate
Tribunal to manage the affairs under the Act till the regular Tribunal is established)
within 60 days from the date of receipt of this Order.

Sd/Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Hon’ble Member
TS RERA

Sd/Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu, Hon’ble Member
TS RERA

Sd/Dr. N. Satyanarayana, Hon’ble Chairperson
TS RERA

12 of 12