Order Complaint No. 660 of 2021

BEFORE TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO.660 OF 2021
17th Day of October, 2023
Corum:

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

Sri Praveen Kumar Pulluri

…Complainant
Versus

M/s Brigade Citadel

…Respondent

The present matter, bearing Complaint No. 660 of 2021, was heard
before this Authority in accordance with the provisions of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, on 8th August 2023, 23rdAugust
2023 and 21st September 2023. The hearing was conducted in the presence of
Complainant (party present in person), Sri Rajesh Manager of the Respondent
company and Mr. P Anil appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
2.

Upon careful consideration of the arguments presented by both parties,

this Authority hereby issues the following ORDER:
A. Facts of the Case
3.

The facts of the case, in brief, are that the Respondent M/s Brigade

Enterprises Limited, had launched “Brigade Citadel-Phase 1, RERA reg no:
P02200002237 in the month November 2020 at Moti Nagar, Hyderabad, and
the Complainant applied for an Apartment in the said project, unit no A11309, Aspen Block on 09.11.2020. The complainant application was accepted
by the Respondent company, and for the same the complainant paid an
advance amount of Rs. 12, 14,095/-.

1of 7

4.

Subsequently, the Respondents communicated a Draft Agreement of

Sale was sent through e-mail. Upon reviewing the Draft Agreement of Sale the
clauses were found to be unilateral and are in violation of RERD Act2016 &
Rules. Accordingly, communications were made with the Respondent through
series of phone calls to authorised customer care and mails to authorised
customer care service email, to raise complaints (ticket no’s), to modify the
Draft Agreement of Sale, to fulfil the obligations being applicant in the Project,
in accordance with the Act & Rules. For the same, the evidences have been
placed on record before this Authority. Further submitted that there are
unfair practices by the Respondent such as:
I.

Initiating Complaint(ticket) no’s on their own with the customer care of
the Respondent and closing it instantaneously

II.

Closing of complaints raised by allottee without definitive replies

III.

Communication of agreement of sale prior to issuance of allotment
letter,

IV.

Raising

invoices/Payments

requests

without

first

entering

into

Agreement of sale in line with Prescribed Agreement of Sale
V.

Threatening as well as blackmailing to allottee to sign the agreement of
sale communicated, otherwise forfeiting advance amount paid besides
cancellation Allotment.

VI.

Disparity among the allottees in respect of usage of common areas and

VII.

Communications through both e-mails followed by postal services.

5.

The response received from the Respondent are not satisfactory enough

even after continuous pursuance. Hence, this complaint.
B. Relief Sought(s)
6.

Accordingly, the Complainant prayed this Authority;

i.

To direct the respondent to adhere to the RERD Act and Rules.

ii.

To examine the signed agreement of sale by other allotees of the project,
through a committee constituted by the Authority in the interest of the
justice.

2of 7

iii.

Any other relief as deemed appropriate by the Authority (including
revoking the registration

C. Reply by the Respondent:
7.

The Complainant booked an Apartment in Brigade Citadel bearing No:

A1-1309, having a super-built-up area of 1793 Sq. Ft., 13th Floor, Phase-1,
Aspen Tower, by signing an Application on 09-11-2020 for Allotment and has
paid a booking amount of Rs. 12,14,095/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Fourteen
Thousand Hundred and Ninety-Five Only) vide Cheque bearing No. 727387 for
Rs. 3,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India and another Cheque dated 2011-2020 bearing No. 209342 for Rs. 9,14,095/- drawn on IDBI bank. The
Application for Allotment contains basic terms and conditions, which has
been duly read and accepted by the Complainant, by signing the same. After
receiving the payment of Rs. 12,14,095/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Fourteen
Thousand Hundred and Ninety-Five Only), the Company has issued Allotment
Notice dated 19-03-2021. The Allotment Notice contains a schedule of
payment, which has been duly accepted by the Complainant. On the request
of the Complainant, the Company had emailed a copy of the Agreement of
Sale on 17-02-2021 to the Complainant. Thereafter, the Company allotted the
apartment

and

the

Company's

representative

communicated

to

the

Complainant on 21-03-2021 to sign the Agreement of Sale with a balance
payment request, and a link to sign the Agreement was e-mailed to the
Complainant. The Complainant reviewed the Agreement of Sale and declined
to sign. The Complainant raised a query on the Company's portal with certain
observations stating that the Agreement is not as per the format provided by
TSRERA. The Company's representative replied that the Agreement of Sale is
as per RERA format and is standard across the project and cannot be
modified. The end customer Agreement for the Project is standardized & filed
before RERA. The Company submits that the Complainant willfully delayed in
entering into the Agreement for Sale by giving excuses and raising trivial
queries. The Allotment specifically prescribes that the Applicant shall enter
into a definitive agreement with the Company within 10 (ten) days from the
date of receipt of the agreement by the Complainant. However, even after
3of 7

providing all the clarifications and sufficient time to sign the Agreement of
Sale, the Complainant did not come forward to sign the Agreement. The
interest accrued as of 02-09-2022 on the total sale consideration payable by
the Complainant is Rs. 7,00,598/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Five Hundred and
Ninety-Eight Only) excluding the applicable GST.
8.

That the Complainant repeatedly requested for a discount in the total

sale price and requested the Company to sell the apartment at a total price of
Rs. 75, 00,000/- as against the booking value of Rs. 1,14,73,160/-, which is a
reduction of 34.6%. The Company's representative communicated that the
Company will not provide any discount. The Company cannot consider any
further discount as sought by the Complainant, as it's part of a group booking
where a few of the employees of TS TRANSCO along with the Purchaser have
booked the apartment in the said project 'Brigade Citadel' at a discounted rate
of Rs. 50/- per Sq. Ft., and 20 (twenty) employees apart from the Complainant
have signed the Agreement of Sale. Change in terms for one person will result
in multiple requests from the group, which the Company cannot afford.
9.

The Respondent states that the Agreement for Sale is in compliance

with the provisions of RERA act and Telangana State RERA rules. It's adopted
across the project without any change to maintain uniformity. The end
customer agreement for the Project is standardized and is filed before RERA.
The same has been accepted by the banks & financial institutions. Hence, the
Company respectfully submits that the Complaint filed by the Complainant is
liable to be dismissed in the interests of justice and equity.
D. Hearing Conducted:
10.

This Authority called the parties for a hearing on 08.08.2023,

23.08.2023, and on 21.09.2023, where both parties appeared on 21.09.2023
and reiterated the points as mentioned above. During the hearing, the
Complainant reiterated the contentions that the drafted Agreement of Sale is
not as per the RERD Act & Rules and is biased towards the Respondent,
which is against the principles of the RERD Act, 2016. Further that the
4of 7

Respondent have been sending mail to the Complainant initimateding for the
cancellation of the apartment and by forfeiting the 10% booking amount along
with GST for not signing the Agreement of sale. Because of which complainant
is feeling threatened by the Respondent.
11.

However, the Respondent refuted the contentions raised by the

Complainant, stated that the Agreement of Sale is well within the provisions
of RERD Act and Rules and has not deviated from the prescribed standard
format. Further, the Respondent submitted that they have followed a
standard format of Agreement of Sale that is followed by them in every other
state, and no objections have been raised by any allottee or RERA of other
states with regard to their Agreement of Sale.
12.

Further, Respondent has submitted that they have time again reminded

the Complainant to sign the Agreement of Sale, despite clarifying every
concerns raised by the complainant, the complainant was not satisfied with
any of the replies. As the Respondents refused to provide any more discounts
to the Complainant, complainant has raised all these bogus concerns time
and again, delayed every payment as per schedule that was acknowledged by
him at the very first meet. It is to be noted that the complainant was well
aware of every amenities that will be provided in the said unit, but still at the
time of the Agreement of sale, the Complainant raised issues that are not
relevant. And changing the terms or clauses of the Agreement of sale as per
the demands of one complainant is not possible, as every other allottee of the
said Unit have executed the same Agreement of sale. It was also submitted
that the Respondents time and again been in favour of sorting out the issues
and closing the transaction rather than cancelling the same. But the
complainant has not come forward with positive aspect.
13.

After considering the arguments and evidence presented by both

parties, the Authority hereby observes the following:

5of 7

E. Observations made by the Authority:
Upon meticulous examination of the presented facts and circumstances, the
Authority deliberates on the following points:
14.

The Complainant contends that the Agreement of Sale provided by the

Respondent for the purchased unit does not align with the provisions of the
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERD Act). The
Authority concurs with the Complainant's assertion and finds that the
Respondent has indeed deviated from the Model Form Agreement of Sale
outlined in the RERD Act, 2016.
15.

The Authority specifically notes the following discrepancies:

a. Clause 7.1 (a) – Force Majeure:
The inclusion of certain elements in the Force Majeure clause by the
Respondent deviates from the Model Agreement of Sale outlined in the Real
Estate

(Regulation

and

Development)

Act,

2016

(RERD

Act,

2016).

Respondent's Agreement of Sale is not in line with the prescribed Rules and
shall be as per the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017
(RERD Rules, 2017).
b. Clause 12(1) – Defect Liability: The module Agreement of Sale as per
RERD Rules Clause 12(1) states that the aggrieved Allottees shall be entitled
to receive appropriate compensation if the Promoter fails to rectify defects
within the time period specified under RERD Rules, 2017. Where in
Promoter’s Agreement of Sale is not in accordance with the RERD Rules, 2017
with regard to the Defect Liability clause, as the Promoter’s provided
agreement does not address compensating the aggrieved allottee in case of the
Promoter's failure to rectify a structural defect. This has to be incorporated.
c. Schedule E – Power of Attorney: The inclusion of Schedule E – Power of
Attorney, is not mentioned in the Agreement of Sale as per the Rule 38
Annexure and hence shall be removed.
16.

The Authority, however, does not have any role in the financial

transactions taken place between the parties.

6of 7

E. DIRECTIONS OF THE AUTHORITY:
17.

In light of the above observations, the Respondent is directed to adhere

to the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and its Rules. The
Agreement of Sale must be amended to align with the RERD Act, 2016.
18.

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

Appellate Tribunal (vide G.O Ms.no.8, dated 11.01.2018, the Telanagana State
Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal has been design
nated as TS Real Estate Appellate Tribunal to manage the affairs under the
Act till the regular Tribunal is established) within 60 days from the receipt of
this Order.
19.

The complaint stands disposed of.
Sd/-

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

Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu, Hon’ble Member
TS RERA

Sd/-

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

7of 7