Order Complaint No. 664 of 2023

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO.664 OF 2023
5th September, 2024
Corum:

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

Ms.Neelima Vanguru

…Complainant

Versus
M/s Trendset Jayaberi Projects LLP,
Dr.K.L.Narayana
Kaza Kavya
…Respondent(s)
The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for final
hearing on 06.04.2024 before this Authority in the presence of Complainant
counsel Sri Pranay and Counsel Rajesh Maddy and Respondent counsel, Sri
Syed Adil Ahmed & M.V.Durga Prasad and upon hearing the arguments of the
party, this Authority passes the following ORDER:
2.

The present 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”) seeking
directions from this Authority to take action aginst the Respondent.
A. Brief Facts on behalf of the complainant:
3.

The Complainant respectfully submits, that, the 1st Respondent is a

Limited Liability Partnership firm. The 2 nd & 3rd Respondent is landlords. The
1st Respondent had taken the land for development from the 2nd & 3rd
Respondents.

The 1st, 2nd & 3rd Respondents entered into Development

Agreement cum General Power of Attorney, dated 10.02.2016 (hereinafter
referred as DAGPA). Under the said DAGPA, the Developer agreed to develop

1 of 39

multistoried residential apartment complex under the name and style of
Trendset Jayabheri Elevate (hereinafter referred as Project). Pursuant to
DAGP, on 09.02.2018 a supplementary agreement was entered. As per the
Supplementary Agreement the flats shown in schedule A fell in the share of
the 2nd & 3rd Respondent. Accordingly, Flat No. B1004, 10th floor, Block B
admeasuring 4094 sq. Ft. of saleable area which comprises 2842 sq. Ft of
carpet area, exclusive Balcony area admeasuring 397 sq.ft and proportionate
common area admeasuring 856 sq. ft along with allotment of 3 car parking
fell in the share of the 2nd Respondent (herein after referred as Flat 1), and
Flat No. F1402, 14th Floor, Block F, admeasuring 2832 Sq. ft, of saleable area
which comprises of 1988 Sq. ft., of carpet area, exclusive Balcony area
admeasuring 191 Sq, ft and Proportionate common area admeasuring 656 sq.
ft along with 3 car parking fell in the share of 3rd Respondent (herein after
referred as Flat 2).
4.

The Complainant respectfully submits that based on the prospectus of

the 1st Respondent and the Promises made by the 2nd & 3rd Respondent the
Complainant intended to buy the above- mentioned flats, the details of the
same are mentioned hereunder:
a. The Complainant and the 2nd Respondent had entered into
Agreement of Sale, dated 25.11.2021, in respect of Flat 1 and 2nd
Respondent agreed to sell the Flat 1, for total sale considerations of
Rs.2, 41, 32,000/- (Rupees Two Crore, Forty-One Lakh and Thirty
two Thousand only). Accordingly, as on the date of the Agreement of
Sale the Complainant had paid an amount of Rs.40, 00,000/- to
the 2nd Respondent and the balances amount was agreed to be paid
as per the Payment plan mentioned therein in schedule C, On
11.04.2023, after receiving entire amounts as per the said
Agreement, a sale Deed, dated 11.04.2022 was executed between
the parties, and the same is registered before the Joint Sub
Registrar, Ranga Reddy District. Complainant, as on date, the
Respondents failed to handover the flat in livable condition.

2 of 39

b. Similarly, in respect of in respect of Flat 2, another Agreement of
Sale, dated 03.11.2020 was entered between the Complainant and
the 3rd Respondent. Accordingly, the 2nd Respondent agreed to sell
the scheduled flat for total sale consideration of Rs.1, 89,55,000/(Rupees One Crore, Eighty-Nine Lakh, Fifty-Five Thousand Only).
As on date of the Agreement of Sale the Complainant has paid an
amount of RS.80,00,000/- to the 2nd Respondent. Complainant
respectfully submits that consequent to the Agreement of Sale,
dated 03.11.2020 the Complainant paid further amounts towards
balance sale consideration of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty Lakh) on
16.01.2021, Rs.10,00,000 (Rupees Ten lakh), and Rs.15,00,000/(Rupees Fifteen Lakh). Thus the 2nd Respondent had received a
total sum of Rs.1,55,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty-Five Lakh.)
However, as the Project is getting delayed, with assurance from the
3rd Respondent, that the 3rd Respondent will execute and register
the Sale Deed by honouring Agreement of Sale, dated 03.11.2020,
in favour of Complainant, and till such time, the 3rd Respondent
returned the payment made by the Complainant. It is pertinent to
submit that, the Complainant filed Suit for specific performance,
vide O.S.No.38 of 2023 of the files of the Honourable VI Addl.
District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.
c. The Complainant respectfully submit, that, as per Clause 5.1 of the
said respective Agreement of Sales, the 2nd & 3rd Respondents,
assured to handover

possession of the Apartments along with

ready and complete common area with all specifications, amenities,
and facilities of the project in place on or before 30.6.2022 &
30.11.2021, respectively. Though as per the Sale Deed Flat 1
Possession was handed over the Complainant, the Respondents
have filed to complete the project, in time, as promised in the
Agreement of Sale. Further, Respondents did not adhere to the
Commitments made in the Agreement of Sale and prospectus.

3 of 39

d. The Complainant respectfully submit, that, as per clause7.1 of both
the Agreement of Sales, it was specifically agreed that ‘ready to
move in possession’, means that the apartment shall be in a
habitable condition which is complete in all respects including the
provisions of all the specifications, amenities and facilities as
agreed to between the parties, and for which occupancy certificate
and certificate and completion certificate, as the case may be, has
to be issued by the competent authority, i.e. the Respondents have
to full fill this clause on or before the 30th June, 2022, in respect of
Flat 1 and 30.11.2021 in respect of Flat 2. The Respondents could
get the occupancy certificate only on 06.06.2023. On perusal of
occupancy certificate, it is found that the Respondents have applied
for the revised plan, without the consent of the allotees. The said
act of the Respondents applying for the revised plan is in
contravention of Section 14 of the RERA Act
e. e) The Complainant respectfully submit, that, the Respondents did
not update on the status of the project, uploaded on the official
website of the TS RERA shows that substantial works are to be
completed.
5.

The Complainant respectfully submits that, there is delay of nearly

about 12 & 19 months in completing the project in respect of Flat1 & 2
respectively. As there is a delay in completing the Project the Complainant is
entitled for the compensation as envisaged in Section 18 of the Act.
6.

The Complainant respectfully submit that apart from the compensation

mentioned, supra, the Complainant is entitled for compensation/damages for
not constructing the Project as promised in the Agreement of Sale and
Prospectus. The Respondents did not provide the following amenities,
specifications and facilities as promised in the Agreement of Sales and
Prospectus:
i.

The Respondents specified in Schedule D of the Agreement of Sale
that, French doors and windows will be of fenista/kommerling or
equivalent make with tinted glass and mosquito mesh. However, the
Respondents without using the said branch or equivalent brands,
4 of 39

have used much inferior, substandard, low grade quality products
for French doors and windows.
ii.

The

Respondents

specified

in

broacher

that

imported

Marble/Premium Vitrified Tiles of best brand Large Format 800MM
X 800MM will be laid in drawing, living/ and dining room. However,
the Respondents have laid ordinary low-grade titles.
iii.

The Respondent Prospectus specifications explicitly states Master
Bedroom and Home Theatre Room with laminated wooden flooring.
However, the said specification has not been provided.

iv.

The Respondent Prospectus specifications explicitly states all
Balconies with Anti-Skid tiles of the best brand. However, the tiles
used are neither Anti-Skid nor branded. The Complainants has not
received any reply from the Respondents upon enquiring which tiles
brand is laid.

v.

The Complaint respectfully submits that huge amounts were spent
to relaying the tiles with Marble in the drawing, living, and dining
room.

vi.

The Complainant respectfully submit, that, the Respondents though
claimed in their Prospectus that the Project will ELEVATE, TO THE
“ LIFE NEXT LEVEL”, they have miserably failed to maintain the
high standards in construction and providing all the specification,
amenities, and facilities as promised by them. It is pertinent to
submit that the facilities provided in the clubhouse are of inferior
quality and not in resonance with the prospectus.

vii.

The Complainant respectfully submits that, the Respondents did not
provide the jogging track.

viii.

The Complainant respectfully submits, that, safety grills for window
were not provided.

ix.

The Complainant respectfully submits that, when they have
approached the Respondents and requested them to provide
specifications, amenities and facilities as promised in the Agreement
of Sale and prospectus, the Respondents gave evasive response and
avoided discussing and when asked about compensate for delay in
5 of 39

handing over the Flat in accordance with clause 7.1 of the
Agreement of Sales, to move in and reside in the Flat, the
Respondents were rude, abrasive. It is pertinent to submit, that, the
Respondent did not complete the project as committed in the
application made for RERA registration.
x.

In addition to the above, the Respondents charged for additional
common area. Though it is specifically mentioned in the Agreement
of Sales that Proportionate common area of 857 sq. Ft, and 656 Sq
ft in respect of Flat No.1 & 2 respectively, the Respondents had
charged more than Proportionate share. An expert committee has to
be appointed to ascertain the total livable area and common area,
available in the project to bring in the day light Robbery of
Respondents from the allotees. Further, the Respondents have
charged the same price for the carpet area/constructed area as well
as

common

area.

Charging

the

same

price

for

carpet

area/constructed area and common area is illegal and contrary to
Act.
7.

The Complainant respectfully submits that, the Complainant is entitled

for compensation for delay in handing over the Flat 1 in habitable condition
and also compensation/ damages for deviating from the specifications by
using inferior, substandard, and low-grade quality products.
8.

It is pertinent to submit, that the Respondents have obtained revised

building Permission on 23.05.2023, without the consent of the flat owners
needless to say that the act of obtaining permission without the consent of the
flat owners is a blatant violation of the RERA Act.
9.

In view of the above submissions, the Complaint reasonably believes

that the Respondents have violated sub Clause (D) of clause (1) of sub-section
2 of section 4 and diverted our payments towards flat cost, as such, they
could not complete the project in time. In order to ascertain truth for delay,
the Authority may conduct investigation in accordance with Sub-section 2 of
Section 35. It is pertinent to submit that, the Respondents instead of
completing the residential blocks in time, diverted our payment towards the
commercial blocks owned by the Developers, at the same premises.
6 of 39

10.

Apart from the above, the Respondents totally failed to comply with the

provisions of Section 11 of RERA Act. The details that Respondents violated of
Section 11 of RERA Act are mentioned hereunder:
a. The Respondents did not upload the quarterly up-to-date list of
number and types of apartments booked, as required under
clause a of Subsection 1 of section 11 of RERA Act. In fact, even
as on the date the complainant Flats are shown as not booked.
b. Similarly, quarterly up up-to-date list of number of garages
booked are also not uploaded, as required under clause c of
subsection 1 of Section 11 of RERA Act.
c. The Respondents project status uploaded on the website shows
that the substantial works are pending for completion to hand
over the actual Possession of the Flats.
d. The Respondents must strictly adhere to sanctioned plans and
project specifications. The Respondents are prohibited form
making any changes to the project’s sanctioned plan without
prior written consent of two-thirds of all allottees in the project. It
is pertinent to submit that the Respondents have deviated from
the sanctioned plan without taking approval as mandated under
clause ii of subsection 2 of Section 14 of RERA Act.
e. The complainant reserves the right to file an additional affidavit
and documents to substantiate the Claims made herein
B. Reliefs sought:
11.

In view of the facts mentioned in paragraph 4 above, the complainant

prays for the following reliefs:
a)

To

conduct

enquiry

about

the irregularities

committed

by

the

Respondents and take appropriate action against the Respondents, by
imposing maximum penalty for contravention of section 4 of RERA Act;
7 of 39

b) To impose penalty for deviating the sanction plan without obtaining prior
Written permission as mandated under Section 14 of RERA Act;
c) To conduct enquiry for diverting the fund of allottees in contravention to
Sub-clause (D) of clause (1) of sub-section 2 of section 4 of RERA Act,and
Impose penalty.
d) And to pass other order or orders as this Authority may deem fit and
Proper in the interest of justice.
C.

Interim Orders:

12.

Pending adjudication of the complaint, the Honourable Authority may

call for record of bank accounts of the Respondents in relation to the project,
as required to maintain under sub-clause (D) of clause (1) of sub-section 2 or
section 4 of RERA Act, accounts book of the project and statement of
accounts duly certified and signed by the chartered accountant, of every
financial year from the date of commencement of project to till date.
D.

Counter filed by the Respondents:

13.

These Respondents denies the various allegations in the Complaint as

being absolutely false and untenable and craves the leave of this Hon'ble
Authority to submit the following preliminary observations before traversing
the allegations in the Complaint.
1. Preliminary objections:
I.

The project was completed by 06.06.2023 and the application for OC was
applied on 22.02.2023, and the competent authority has issued an
occupancy certificate in respect of the project on 06.06.2023. The Act is a
central Act, and the matters governed by State or local law like HMDA Act,
GHMC Act, Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019, etc., and within the
jurisdiction of the Authorities under those State Acts, are outside the
purview of the Act, which is also evident from the scheme of the Act and

8 of 39

underlying the Sections 2 (p), (q), (zc), and (z(f), Sec.3 (1), 11(4) (b) and (e),
Sec.17, Sec.27(1), and 50(1) (a) etc. Hence, the complaint is incompetent.
II.

Even otherwise, in view of the Occupancy Certificate, the power under
Section 34 for giving directions has worked out itself. The complainant filed
another complaint No.663/2023/TSRERA, posted before Adjudicating
Officer, for compensation, on the basis of the same documents,
camouflaging her claim and suppressing the Civil Suit. The complainant
has played fraud on the respondent No. 2 and 3 and filed OS No.38 of
2023 on the file of the learned VI Additional District Judge, Kukatpally in
respect of F.1402 and the said suit was dismissed, on rejection of the
plaint in IA.No.663 of 2023, by order dated 09.08.2023, and this was
suppressed by the complainant. Therefore, her fraudulent claim stands
rejected by the competent civil court. She cannot charge the claim in
respect of the said flat before this honorable authority, which is essentially
of civil nature.

III.

The complainant has not purchased the flat No.F.1402 and flat No.B1004
from the 'promoter' within the meaning of section 2 (zk) of the Act, but
from the share of the landowners and therefore the complainant is not an
'allottee' within the meaning of section 2 (d), and hence, it is not
maintainable.

IV.

The complainant has taken the handing over letter of the flat No.B1004,
without demur, for the purpose of interior works on 16.05.2022 and made
alterations of her own, beyond recognition and therefore, she is estopped
by conduct to make any complaint against the promoter in any manner.
The Complaint is filed on 02.08.2023, beyond reasonable time from taking
possession in context of the facts and the complaint is barred by laches.

V.

The alleged delay on the part of the promoter is false. In fact, the
complainant is aware that the government has issued several orders in
exercise of its powers under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, during
the pandemic period. The government of India and the government of
Telangana have treated the outbreak of novel coronavirus (Covid -19) as
force majeure circumstances and in order to facilitate the Real Estate
Sector, TSRERA had decided to extend the validity of the completion dates
9 of 39

granting extension sporadically by 6 months each time, for about 1 ½
years (one year 6 months) by virtue of the order No.14 dated 13.05.2020,
No.15 dated 29.09.2020, and No.16 dated 01.06.2021 due to the
unexpected departure of the laborers to their native places. Accordingly, TS
RERA issued a fresh registration from 12.03.2019 to 08.05.2023 in the
place of the initial registration from 12.03.2019 to 30.06.2021. The project
was completed during the period of registration and the possession of the
flat was taken by the complainant on 16.05.2022 after being satisfied
about the completion as per the terms and conditions and acknowledging
by letter dated 16.05.2022 that "Trendset Jayabheri Projects LLP" has
completed the construction in compliance to all the terms and conditions;
and specifications as referred above." Hence, the complainant is estopped
from making claims to the contrary, after more than one and half year
which is motivated and fraudulent.
VI.

The complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has sought the
same relief under Form N filed before the Adjudicating officer. The two
applications are under Section 31 of the Act, which provides for a
Complaint with authority or adjudicating officer as the case may be. It uses
the expression "or" but not "and" and it is further qualified as the case may
be. Therefore, parallel proceedings before both the Authorities are not
permissible. Further, Rule 34 prescribes Form M for complaint with the
authority for any violations of the Act or rules thereunder. Rule 35
provides for filing of a complaint with the adjudicating officer in Form N for
the interest or compensation as provided in Section 12, 14, 18 & 19. It is
to be noted that the Adjudicating Authority is appointed for the said
purpose under Section 71 by the RERA and cannot be treated as either
independent or a separate entity. Hence, there cannot be concurrent
proceedings

before

both

the

Authorities.

The

complainants

have

approached before this Hon'ble Authority by playing fraud and seeking a
penalty through fraudulent means. The filing of multiple complaints on the
same frivolous grounds, before the Adjudicating Officer, shows the ill
conduct of the complainants, and the present complaint shall be dismissed
on this ground alone. The complainant has suppressed these material
10 of 39

facts in her complaint and hence the complainant is liable to be dismissed
in limine, on this ground alone, in view of the Judgment reported in (2010)
14 SCC 38 and as reiterated in AIR 2013 SC 523. Further, the complaint is
filed in gross abuse of the process of law. The complainant and her brother
have conspired to defraud the respondent promoter in a similar manner, to
avoid payment of dues, as fully described hereunder. Hence, before
traversing the allegations made by the complainant it is necessary to bring
to the notice of this Hon'ble Authority, the true facts as under:
4. True facts:
VII.

We have constructed a project named "Trendset- Jayabheri Projects
Elevate"

called

TJP

Elevate

for

short

in

Sy.No.5

of

Kondapur,

Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, for which OC was granted
by GHMC on 06.06.2023. The brother of complainant Mr. Nikhil Reddy
Vanguru S/o. Narayan Reddy, approached us in August 2019 and
introduced himself as a builder being a partner of Ishta Homes LLP and
expressed his appreciation for our project and interest to book a Flat for
himself and his sister in our project. He has initially booked Unit No. A
1904 (Floor area 2,730 sq. ft) in Project "Elevate" on 17.08.2019 for a total
sale consideration agreed was Rs.2,14,40,475/- including GST for which
he entered into an Agreement on 17.12.2020. He applied for a home loan
from the Axis Bank, Tarnaka branch, who insisted on a tripartite
agreement for the said flat, and bank collected originals. Mr. Nikhil Reddy
made some payments through the bank for the flat A.1904 and got
changed the standard floor plan and thereafter changed his booking for a
bigger flat Unit No. E 1601 and entered into a fresh agreement of sale and
tripartite agreement in respect of Unit No. E 1601 which was collected by
the Bank and then induced the promoter to register the sale deed by giving
photocopies of the balance payable, altered the interiors, and sent letters
with false allegations and after obtaining the original Sale deed on
representation of getting original DDs, he dishonestly got DDs canceled to
downsize his home loan in collusion with Bank officials and when this was
detected, we threatened to file a criminal case, Nikhil Reddy and his father

11 of 39

settled the matter by making payment. The same modus operandi was
adopted by the Complainant, who along with her father, Sri V. Narayana
Reddy approached one of the landowners, Dr. K. L. Narayana, respondent
No.2 herein, has initially chosen flat bearing Unit No. F1402 admeasuring
2835 sft belonging to his daughter respondent No.3 and entered into an
Agreement of Sale on 03.11.2020 and requested for customization of the
said flat, changing the standard floor plan and thereafter, requested the
respondent No.2 herein to sell a bigger flat bearing Unit No. B1004
admeasuring 4095 sft, belonging to the second respondent, getting the
agreement for Unit No. F1402 canceled. The complainant and her father
brought the letter dated 06.10.2021 and requested a refund of the entire
consideration in respect of Flat No.1402 after she opted for a bigger flat.
VIII.

The respondent No.2 in good faith has accepted the same and accordingly,
his daughter, the 3rd respondent herein, refunded back the consideration
amount of Rs.1,55,00,000/- paid in respect of flat No.1402 by the
complainant through RTGS on 02.03.2022 and 06.04.2022 as the
transaction under the agreement was canceled at her request. There is no
dispute about the refund and the letter dated 06.10.2021 and the civil
court has given a clear-cut finding in the judgment dated 09.08.2023 in
IA.No.663 of 2023 in O.S.No.38 of 2023 filed by the complainant that, "As
per the plaint the amount of advance sale consideration was refunded on
06.04.2022 and the plaintiff filed suit on 13.02.2023". But, with dishonest
and fraudulent intention, the complainant avoided returning the original
agreement dated 03.11.2020. The copy of the Agreement of Sale dated
03.11.2020, Plaint and Judgment in OS.No.38 of 2023 are annexed to this
counter.

IX.

In the circumstances, a fresh agreement was entered into respect of Unit
No. B1004 admeasuring 4095 sft on 25.11.2021. As the second and third
respondents believed her and her family members, in view of booking of
two flats, they did not suspect them. The copy of the Agreement dated
25.11.2021 is annexed to this counter. As the second respondent in good
faith believed the complainant and her family members, as her brother
purchased another flat and did not suspect their evil designs.
12 of 39

X.

The second respondent executed the Sale Deed dated 11.04.2022
registered as Doc No.5886/2022 in respect of flat B- 1004 without
receiving the entire consideration payable in respect of B1004, believing
their promise to pay the same. The copy of the Sale Deed dated 11.04.2022
registered as Document No.5886/2022 is annexed to this counter. On
verification of the documents and accounts pertaining to transactions
made by the complainant herein and to the shock and surprise, it came to
light that she also cheated and in the same way by playing confidence trick
on Respondents No.2 and 3.

XI.

The consideration payable under the agreement is Rs.2,41,32,000/-, which
includes the GST amount. In addition thereto, they have to pay corpus
fund and upfront maintenance charges for 2 years with GST payable
thereon. The complainant and her father Sri V. Narayana Reddy requested
persuaded Respondent No. 2 not to mention the outstanding GST amount
of Rs.5,85,750/-, out of the agreement price, with a view to making gain in
terms of stamp duty registration, (saying it amounts double taxation)
promising to pay the said GST amount separately. Believing their
statements, the sale deed was drafted as per their requirement, reciting
only Rs.2,35,46,250/- as the sale price payable under the agreement
(contrary to the Agreement) and accordingly the total consideration as
recited was shown as paid, which is not true. The respondents paid GST to
avoid penalties and entitled to refund with interest and compensation. The
complainant misused the agreement dated 03.11.2020 fraudulently
retained by her and filed OS No.38 of 2023 on the file of the learned VI
Additional District Judge, Kukatpally for specific performance in respect of
F.1402 and therefore the respondents filed applications for rejection of the
plaint and after hearing both sides, the said suit was dismissed, on
rejection of the plaint in IA.No.663 of 2023, by order dated 09.08.2023.

XII.

Thus, the complainant played fraud on us and we reserve our rights and
remedies in this regard against her and her father, both civil and criminal
and are entitled also for compensation. In fact, in the plaint filed by her in
O.S.No.38 of 2023, she has categorically admitted the refund of the entire
amount received from her in respect of the F.1402. Thus, her fraudulent
13 of 39

claim stood rejected by the competent civil court. She cannot re-agitate the
civil claim in respect of the said flat again before this honorable authority,
which is essentially of civil nature. The copy of the order dated 09.08.2023
in IA.No.663 of 2023 is annexed to this counter.
XIII.

The Complainant tried to evade the amount payable in respect of corpus
fund, 2 year upfront of maintenance, GST on such maintenance charges
payable under the sale deed to the association and when we threatened
her for filing a criminal case for non-payment, she immediately made the
payment of corpus fund, 2yr upfront of maintenance, GST on maintenance
payable under the Agreement to the Association and still she is in default
of Rs.5,85,750/- with interest payable thereon at the rate of 18% per
annum from and therefore she being a defaulter under Section 19 (6) of the
Act is not entitled for any relief and on the other hand, she being a
defaulter is liable pay interest under section 19 (7) of the Act with effect
from the date of sale deed on 11.4.2022 on the delayed payment of corpus
fund & 2yr upfront maintenance charges, GST on maintenance charges
and also the defaulted amount. The Respondents reserve their rights and
remedies in this regard.

XIV.

The Complainant and her father requested the second respondent to
permit them to carry out the interiors in the Flat B1004 and as per their
request gate passes were issued to their supervisor. The complainant also
signed the letter dated 16.05.2022, accepting and acknowledging that the
builder firm has completed the construction in compliance with all the
terms and conditions and further undertaking that she should abide by
the terms and conditions specified by the builder firm, for carrying out the
interiors, which she signed on the same day. But, the complainant and her
father started violating the said undertaking, particularly condition No.7
and 10 thereof. As per the said letter, the occupation would be handed
over only after obtaining the occupancy certificate.

XV.

The complainant, without paying the balance amount including the
amounts payable to the Association, namely corpus fund and upfront
maintenance charges for 2 years as above, as per the terms of the sale
deed and tried to take occupation of the flat, for which we did not permit.
14 of 39

Then the complainant once again requested for possession and we agreed
to deliver possession, subject to certain terms that possession given would
be without prejudice to our right to recover the balance, on her payment of
the corpus fund and up front maintenance charges payable to the
Association.
XVI.

The copy of the letter dated 16.05.2022 is annexed to this counter. In view
of the said letter, she cannot make any claim contrary and allegedly seek
compensation. The complainant is liable to pay/refund the amount of
Rs.5,85,750/- towards GST on sale price with interest 18% till date which
she and her father induced us not to mention in the registered sale deed,
by changing its draft, contrary to the agreement and which amount she
has not paid till date and to avoid that amount she falsely filed the present
case. Hence, being a defaulter, she cannot maintain a complaint under
Section 18 and is liable to be directed to the sum of Rs.7,17,545/- and
dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.
5. Allegations traversed:

XVII.

The allegations in the complaint are absolutely false, baseless and invented
for the purpose of the false claims of the complainant. In fact, the present
complaint is filed in utter desperation, after the complainant was exposed
in the civil suit. The specific allegations in the complaint are traversed as
under:
6. Alleged Delay:

XVIII.

The allegations are false, bald and devoid of any material particulars. The
respondent completed the flat in advance in all aspects and handed over
the flat to Complainant on 16.05.2022, 1 month 4 days from the
registration, after she has expressed her satisfaction about the completion.
She has signed the handing over letter dated 16.05.2022, accepting the
contents thereof and she would not have kept quiet, for more than one
year 2 months since then, if there were any defect or deficiency. Therefore
the allegations are an afterthought, invented for the purpose of her false
claim.

15 of 39

XIX.

The alleged delay on the part of the promoter is false. As already stated,
the Flat was completed and handed over to much in advance, at her
request and she cannot have any grievance in this regard. So far as the
project is concerned, the government has issued several orders extending
time in exercise of its powers under the Disaster Management Act, 2005,
during the pandemic period. The government of India and the government
of Telangana have treated the outbreak of novel coronavirus (Covid -19) as
force majeure circumstances and in order to facilitate the Real Estate
Sector, TSRERA had decided to extend the validity of the completion dates
granting extension sporadically by 6 months each time, for about 1 ½
years (one year 6 months) by virtue of the order No.14 dated 13.05.2020,
No.15 dated 29.09.2020 and No.16 dated 01.06.2021 due to unexpected
departure of the laborers to their native places. Accordingly, TS RERA
issued a fresh registration to us extending from 12.03.2019 to 08.05.2023
in the place of the initial registration from 12.03.2019 to 30.06.2021. The
project was completed during the period of registration and the occupation
of the flat was taken by the complainant much before, on 16.05.2022 after
being satisfied about the completion as per the terms and conditions,
which she acknowledged in the handing over letter dated 16.05.2022 that
"Trendset Jayabheri Projects LLP" has completed the construction in
compliance with all the terms and conditions; and specifications as
referred above."

XX.

Hence, the complainant is estopped from making claims to the contrary,
after more than one and half year which is motivated and fraudulent. The
COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact due to regulatory
changes, travel restriction, workforce disruption, supply chain disruption
and
7. Alleged Non-uploading of details on the website:

XXI.

The allegation that the status was not uploaded is false. No developer in
Telangana is uploading any status and even when the developer tried to
upload the details, the same was not processed, due to a server issue in
the RERA Website.

16 of 39

8. Diverted funds towards commercial block:
XXII.

There is no such violation done as alleged by the complainant. The
complainant is trying to cook up false stories in order to defame the
respondent No.1 and to escape from their liability, without their being any
basis and proof for the same. Therefore, the section 4 has no application. It
is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Authority may be pleased to dismiss
the Complaint with exemplary costs.
E. Rejoinder to the Counter of the Respondents

14.

At the Outset, it is submitted that the Respondents Counter is

misleading, with bundle of lies, frivolous contentions/allegations, and based
on Created, forged and fabricated documents. The Respondents have
misrepresented and misled this Honourable Authority and are guilty of
suggestion falsi suppresio very. All the contents in the counter are false and
are denied, except those that are specifically admitted herein. Merely because
if it is Specially not traverse, it is cannot be deemed to have been admitted.
The Complainant is limiting the rejoinder to the extent of factual aspects. It
is 14.05.2022, 12.04.2022, filed along with the counter, the Respondents are
put to strict proof that they were served upon the complainant.
15. It is respectfully submitted that the complainant had filed a Complaint
No.663/2023/TS RERA before the Adjudicating Officer for compensation
under Section 18 of RERA Act read with Rule 15 and other reliefs. Wherein
the Respondent filed Counter along with documents alleging that the
Complainant has written a letter dated 06.10.2021 to the GPA Holder of the
2nd Respondent i.e., the 1st Respondent asking for cancellation of Agreement
of Sale, dated 03.11.2020. The Complainant has taken serious objections
about the alleged letter, dated 06.10.2021 and filed applications to call for
the Original letter, dated 06.10.2021 and to send the same for comparing the
signature therein with the admitted signatures of the Complainant to expert.
It is pertinent to submit that in the current proceedings though the

17 of 39

Respondent had referred to the letter dated 06.10.2021 they have
conveniently not filed the said alleged letter dated 06.10.2021. This gives
strength to the complainants contentions that the signature on the letter
dated 06.10.2021 is forged. The Respondent has deliberately avoided filing
the alleged letter dated 06.10.2021 which clearly shows that the said letter
was never issued by the Complainant. Similarly, apart from the letter dated
06.10.2021 the Respondents did not file the letters, both dated 14.06.2023,
which clearly shows that such letters were never in existence. The conduct of
the Respondents has to be taken very seriously and appropriate action has to
be taken against the Respondents for misleading the Honourable Authority
by filing false and frivolous Counter. This also confirms that the Respondents
had played fraud on the Adjudicating Officer by filing the false and fabricated
documents. The Complainant reserves the right to make appropriate
applications to call for the record from the Adjudicating Officer.
16. The contentions raised by the Respondent has to be proved by the by
way of positive evidence, in the absence of proof the same has to be rejected.
17. The Respondents are put to strict proof that they had make application
for OC on 22.02.2023. The other averments are legal aspects which will be
addressed at the time of the hearing.
18.

It is respectfully submitted that merely obtaining the Occupancy

Certificate will not exonerate the Respondents from their statutory
obligations.
19. It is respectfully submitted that the Complainant had not suppressed
about the civil suit. It is further submitted that the reliefs sought before the
Adjudicating Officer is different, and the reliefs sought herein are different,
and both the Complaints are filed under different provisions of law, which is
also permitted to file two different complaints for two different Complaints.
20.

It is denied that the Complainant played fraud on Respondents No.2

and 3 and filed O.S No. 38 of 2003 on the file of the learned VI Addl. District
Judge, Kukatpally in respect of F.1402 and it is further denied that the
complainant had suppressed the Orders, dated 09.08.2023, in I.A No.663 of
2023 rejecting the Plaint in O.S No. 38 of 2023. It is relevant to submit, that,
the Complainant filed the complaint on 02.08.2023, hence the question of
18 of 39

suppression will not arise, it is the Respondents who are making false
averments in the counter and trying to mislead the Honourable Authority.
The Complainant has received certified copy of the Orders, dated 09.08.2023
and filed appeal before the Honourable High Court against the said Orders.
As such, the Orders, dated 09.08.2023 have not attained finality.
21.

Submit, that, in unambiguous terms, the definition of Promoter as

defined in Section 2 (zk) of the Act included the landowner. The Landowner
and the developer/promoter are jointly liable for the functions and
responsibilities specified under the Act or the Rules or Regulations made
thereunder. In the commentary on RERA Act, which was authored by the
Counsel for the Petitioner/Respondent at page 58 as under;
“(iii) Act Covers land owner: There is no direct regulation of land owner
giving the land for development, as such in the Act. But, it appears land
owner is covered by the owner, also in respect of construction of
Apartments and Buildings. The GPA holder of landowner is expressly
covered. The Act imposes stringent liability in respect of title to land
and conveyance thereof, though if dose not use the expression
landowner, as such. The obligation and timelines under the Act cannot
be performed, unless the landowner is also a promter. The involvement
of landowner in the development and legal accountability will be felt
significantly and he is no longer a passive player.....”
22.

Submit, that, apart from the above submissions, various authorities

and courts held that the definition of 2 (zk) includes landowner.
23.

It is denied that the Complainant had taken handing over letter of the

flat No. B 1004 without any demur, and is further denied that the
complainant had made alterations beyond recognition. It is pertinent to
submit that, the Complainant had to undertake certain works as the
Respondents utterly failed to fulfil their promises, commitments made in the
prospectus and Agreement of Sale. Since the Respondents provided
substandard, 2nd grade material, the Complainant had to undertake work.
24.

Of the counter, it is denied that the complaint was filed beyond a

reasonable time from taking possession, i.e. 16.05.2022. Without prejudice,
19 of 39

it is pertinent to submit, that, actual possession even according to the socalled letter is only to carry out interior works. The actual occupation can
only take place after receiving the Occupation Certificate from GHMC. And in
the present case even according to the Respondent Occupation Certificate
was granted on 06.06.2023, hence there is no delay in filing the complaint as
alleged.
25.

It is submitted that, entire contents made therein are denied, the

Respondents are put to strict proof of the same. It is further pertinent to
submit, that, the Respondents entered into Agreement of Sales on
25.11.2021 and 03.11.2022, both the dates are after the pandemic was
declared. The Respondents cannot take shelter of any of the Government
Orders, even if were in existence, as the Respondents with an anxiety to sell
the flats, at clause 5 of the agreement, dated 25.11.2021 made commitment
to the complainant, that the possession of the Flat B 1004, would be on or
before 30.06.2022. Further, at clause 7 of the Agreement, in unequivocal
terms it is mentioned that, ‘ready to move in possession ‘shall mean that the
apartment shall be in a habitable condition which is complete in all respects
including the provision of all specifications, amenities and facilities, as
agreed to between the parties, and for which occupation certificate, as the
case may be, has to be issued by the competent authority. Even according to
the Respondents, it is only on 06.06.2023 occupancy certificate was issued,
as such, there is clear delay in completing the project and delivering actual
possession in livable conditions. As already mentioned above, taking shelter
from the alleged GOs, even if any, is nothing but malicious conduct of the
Respondents, which cannot be permitted.

In respect of the letter, dated

16.05.2022, the complainant was forced to sign without making any
remarks, otherwise the Respondents threatened that they would not give flat
for interior works. As the Complainant was paying an amount of Rs.
58,000/-( Rupees Fifty Eight Thousand only) towards rent, plus, Rs.
10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) towards maintenance, plus, EMI
towards new flat of Rs.1,13,294/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirteen Thousand Two
Hundred and Ninety Four Only) totaling an amount of Rs. 1,81,294/(Rupees One Lakh Eighty One Two Hundred and Ninety Four Only), the
20 of 39

Complainant could not protest at the time of taking flat for interiors. It is
pertinent to submit, that, Respondents are not committing before the
Authority that they have completed the project with all the agreed terms, but
they are relying on the letter which was obtained under threat.
26.

The contents therein are legal aspects which will be addressed at the

time of hearing. The Respondents have made unnecessary, unrelated
comments against the Complainant and her brother. The Complainant
brother is not concerned with issues pending before the Honourable
Authority. It is Respondents who are fraudsters, and cheaters, who have
enriched themselves by deviating

commitments made in

prospectus

(broacher) and agreement of sale. The Respondents claim that the project will
be an elite project, but, however, failed to maintain any standards that are
required in any elite project. In spite of charging very high amounts towards
the cost of the flat, the Respondents have provided substandard, 2nd grade
material/facilities in the project. The alleged True facts are nothing but
bundle of lies, through which the Respondents are trying to mislead the
Honourable Authority.
27.

It is true that the Complainant brother entered into Agreement of Sale

in respect of the Flat No. A. 1904 in Project “Elevate” , believing the false
reputation and prospectus of the Respondents in the market that they would
adhere to their commitments, and agreed terms. However, the Complainant
was shocked looking at the substandard quality used by the Respondents for
the Project Elevate.
28.

The contents therein are partially correct to the extent that, the

Complainant brother had changed his booking for bigger Flat unit No. E
1601. The other allegations made therein are utterly false, concocted, created
and are unrelated to the present proceedings. However, it is just and
necessary to revert the baseless allegations of the Respondents. On enquiry
with the Complainant brother, the Complainant came to know that, the
Respondent illegally demanded the amount more than actual balance
payment that is to made at the time of Registration of Flat. On several
occasions the Complainant brother has approached the Respondent for
reconciliation of Accounts, however, they dogged for reconciliation and the
21 of 39

Respondent through E-Mail dated 13.07.2023 and 25.07.2023 demanded
Complainant bother to pay Rs. 27,78,157/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs
Seventy Eight Thousands One Hundred and Fifty Seven only) without
showing statement of payment of payments to the Complainant brother.
Finally, on 09.09.2023, after reconciliation of Accounts, the Respondent
received an amount of Rs. 13,42,802/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Forty Two
Thousands Eight Hundred and Two only). This clearly shows that the
Respondent had made a false claim and tried to extort additional amounts
from the Complainant brother. The Respondents are fraudsters, cheaters,
makes unreasonable demands and extorts money from innocent person hard
earned monies. If a proper independent enquiry is conducted on the
transaction made by the Respondents in respect of the project, the conduct
of the Respondents will come to the light. It is true that the Complainant
brother downsized the loan as funds are available with him. It is denied that
the complainant brother induced the promoter to register the sale deed by
giving photo copies of balance payable, altered the interiors and sent letters
with false allegations and after obtaining the original sale deed on
representation of getting original DDs, he dishoneslty got DDs cancelled to
downsize his home loan in collusion with Bank officials and when this was
detected, the Respondents threatened to file criminal case, Nikhil Reddy and
his father settled the matter by making payment. The Respondents are put
strict proof that on their threatening to file case, against Nikhil Reddy, his
father settled the matter by making payment.
29.

It is denied that, the complainant had adopted the same modus

operandi, and approached one of the land owners, Dr. K.L. Narayana
Respondent No.2, along with her father and got the agreement cancelled for
Flat No. F 1402. It is vehemently denied that the complainant and her father
gave a letter, dated 06.10.2021 to the 2nd Respondent to cancel the
Agreement of Sale, dated 03.11.2020, as the complainant wanted to take a
bigger size of flat in the project and to refund the amount to her bank
account duly acknowledging the same by affixing her signature. It is
pertinent to submit that in the counter filed in complaint 663/2024/TS
RERA pending before the Honourable Adjudicating Officer the Complainant
22 of 39

did not state that the Complainant father was also present at the time of
handling the alleged letter dated 06.10.2020. It is further denied that ,
Respondent No. 2 in good faith has accepted the same and accordingly,
Respondent

No.3

refunded

back

the

consideration

amount,

as

the

transaction under the agreement was cancelled at her request and that with
dishonest and fraudulent intention, the complainant involved to return the
original agreement ,dated 03.11.2020. The true facts are that, when the
complainant demanded the Respondents either to receipt balance sale
consideration, thereby to execute sale deed with possession

or to

compensate for delay, the Respondent assured that she will execute and
register the Sale Deed by honouring Agreement of Sale , dated 03.11.2020 in
favour of the complainant and till such time

the Respondent proposed to

return the advance paid amount of Rs.1,55,00,000/- (rupees One Crore Fifty
Five Lakhs only) to retain the same with the

complainant till she get

communication from the Respondent. The Complainant never sent the
alleged letter, dated 06.10.2021 for cancellation of Agreement of Sale, dated
03.11.2020. The Respondents have created the said letter, dated 06.10.2021.
by forging the Complainant signature. It is pertinent to submit, that, the
Respondents never referred the said letter, dated 06.10.2021 in I.A.No.663 of
2023 in O.S. No. 38 of 2023 of the files of the VI Additional District Judge of
Kukatpally, filed under Order 9, Rule I I of the code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The Respondents are trying to play fraud not only on the Complainant, but,
also on the Honourable Authority by relying on such forged document and
trying to defeat the Complainant legitimate claims. Since, I took a specific
stand that the letter, dated 06.10.2021 is forged, fabricated and created
document, as such, the Respondents conveniently avoided to place it before
the Honourable Authority the alleged letter, dated 06.10.2021. The
Complainant reserves its right to call for the alleged original letter dated
06.10.2021 and also reserves its right to make appropriate applications,
criminal complaint against the Respondents for mentioning the forged,
fabricated documents before the Honourable Authority. It is specifically
denied that the letter dated 6.10.2021 is seriously disputed, as already
submitted above the Respondent No. 2 had

mentioning about the letter
23 of 39

dated 06.10.2021 in I.A. No.663 of 2023 in O.S .No.38 of 2023.
30.

It is submitted that, the transaction in respect of the 2nd Flat, i.e., B

1004 is independent of the earlier Agreement of Sale, dated 03.11.2020. The
Complainant has taken housing loan towards payment of the sale
consideration in respect of Flat No. B 1004. It is pertinent to submit that, on
04.03.2022 the Complainant had paid the stamp duty and registration
charges in order to get the Flat B. 1004 registered, however, the 2nd
Respondent did not come forward to register the Flat. Similarly, again on
17.03.2022 once again the complainant was ready with the last tranche of
payment with the banker cheque (housing loan) of 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees
One Crore Only) the Respondent dogged to register Flat No. B 1004 also, with
an ulterior motive to extract more money. On repeated requests and after
completely satisfying their unreasonable demands Respondent registered the
Flat B 1004. It is further submitted, that, in respect of Flat No. F 1402
amounts were returned with an understanding as mentioned in the
preceding paragraph. It is the Complainant who believed and did not suspect
the evil design of the Respondents. The complainant never imagined that the
Respondents would take U-turn form their commitments. Believing the false
reputation of the Respondents, the complainant fell into their trap. It is
denied that, the 2nd Respondent executed the Sale Deed, dated 11.04.2022
registered as Document No. 5886/2022 in respect of Flat No. B 1004 without
receiving the entire consideration payable in respect of B 1004.
31.

At the outset, it is denied that the Complainant has to pay an amount

of Rs. 5,85,750/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Eighty Five Thousands Seven Hundred
and Fifty only) towards GST. The Complainant has paid all the amounts as
agreed between the parties. In fact, there is no need for the 2nd Respondent
to collect the GST amounts, as the 2nd Respondents who is landlord sold his
share in the project. The amounts collected by the 2nd Respondent for GST
are liable to be returned to the complainant with interest. The unjustified
demand for GST, shows the fraudulent collection of huge amounts from their
buyer towards GST, which is nothing but cheating As submitted earlier the
Respondents are fraudsters, who enrich themselves by collecting huge
amounts form their innocent customers. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents are
24 of 39

put to strict proof that they had paid amounts towards GST to the
government in respect of the flats sold being by the landowners. At the cost
of repetition, the Complainant once again submits that entire amounts were
paid to the 2nd Respondent and that there is no due. The contentions that
the complainant requested not to mention in the sale deed about the GST
amounts etc., are all created, Concocted by the Respondents for enriching
themselves. The Respondents are put to strict proof that they had demanded
earlier for alleged unpaid amounts towards GST.
32.

The further contentions that the Complainant has to pay corpus fund

and upfront maintenance charges for 2 years with GST payable thereon and
that , the Respondents threatening the Complainant with criminal case for
non-payment of amounts towards corpus fund and maintenance is all false
and are created. The Respondents are put to strict proof that only on
threatening to file criminal case the Complainant paid amounts toward
maintenance and corpus fund after they obtain Occupancy Certificate and
the same was accepted by the Respondents without protest of non-payment
of amounts towards GST, or whatsoever. Hence, the Complainant is not the
defaulter, and the she need not to pay an amount of Rs.7,17,545/- (Rupees
Seven Lakhs Seventeen Thousands Five Hundred and Forty Five only) to the
Respondents.
33.

As submitted earlier that the Complainant has filed appeal against the

Orders, dated 09.08.2023 have not attained finality.
34.

As submitted earlier, the said letter, dated 16.05.2022 was signed

under threat. The Respondents cannot take advantage of the letter which
was signed under threat. The Respondents in their counter did not
independently meet the allegations with proof in respect of deviation from the
prospectus and agreement of Sale. The Respondents conduct in taking
advantage of the letter given under threat, without proving independently
that they have met all the commitments made in the prospectus, agreement
of Sale and all other statutory requirements as mandated by the RERA Act,
proves that the contentions of the Complainant that the Respondent had
violated the commitments made in the prospectus and agreement of Sale.
35.

It is submitted, that, the Complainant never violated any condition as
25 of 39

alleged by the Respondents. In respect of other contents, the same are
repetitive in nature, for the sale of brevity; the same are not being repeated.
36.

It is denied that the allegations made in the complaint are absolutely

false, baseless and invented for the purpose of the false claims, and that, it is
filled in utter desperation, after the complaint was exposed in the civil suit.
37.

The contentions raised therein are repetitive in nature and the same

are already traversed, for the sake of brevity, the same are not being
repeated.
38.

As per the RERA Act, the Respondents are to strictly adhere to the

sanction plan without deviation, whatsoever in nature. Having deviated from
the sanction plan the Respondents cannot take shelter that for the benefit of
the project, they had to deviate.
39.

The contentions that no developer in Telangana are uploading any

status, is very strange submission. Once an Act specifies to do an act in a
specified manner, which has to be followed scrupulously, especially when
such acts are to benefit the public at large. The intent of legislation of RERA
Act is to ensure greater accountability, and significantly reduce frauds and
delays and to establish symmetry of information between the promoter and
purchaser, transparency of contractual conditions, among various others.
Being one of the known builders in twin cities, it is strange to see such sort
of casual response. Further contentions that there were server issues are not
correct; the Respondents are to put strict proof of the same.
40.

It is fact that the Respondents have diverted funds. The same will be

dealt with in detail at appropriate time.
41.

It is pertinent to submit that the Respondent are selling the parking

lots which is prohibited under the Act, by selling the parking lots the
Respondent

had

extracted

Crores

of rupees

from

the

buyers. The

Respondents have to appropriate the collected towards car parking charges.
42.

In view of the above submissions, this Honourable Authority may be

pleased to allow the compliant with exemplary costs
F. Observations of the Authority on IA filed by Respondents

26 of 39

43.

During the hearings, the Respondents, have filed an IA (Interlocutory

Application)

seeking

the

dismissal

of

the

complaint

made

by

the

Petitioner/Complainant. The Respondents contends that the complaint is
incompetent and not maintainable based on various grounds outlined in the
affidavit dated October 30, 2023.
Grounds for Dismissal submitted by Respondents
a. The Respondent alleges that the Complainant had filed a civil
suit (O.S.No.38 of 2023), which was dismissed on August 9,
2023. The dismissal was due to the rejection of the plaint in
IA. No. 663 of 2023. The Respondent argues that the
Complainant suppressed this information and cannot relitigate the matter.
b. The Respondent asserts that the Complainant did not
purchase the flat from the 'promoter' within the meaning of the
relevant act but from the share of landowners. Therefore, the
Complainant is not considered an 'allottee' within the statutory
definition, making the complaint non-maintainable.
c. The Respondent claims that the Complainant took possession
of the flat and made alterations without objection, thus being
estopped from making subsequent complaints against the
promoter.
d. The Respondent argues that matters governed by state or
local laws, such as HMDA Act, GHMC Act, and Telangana
Municipalities Act, fall outside the purview of the central Act
under which the complaint has been filed.
e. The Respondent contends that the complaint, filed on August
2, 2023, is beyond a reasonable time from the date of
possession (May 16, 2022), and the Complainant is barred by
laches.
f. The Respondent points out that the Complainant filed two
complaints with similar allegations, seeking relief under the
same provisions of law. The Respondent argues that pursuing

27 of 39

parallel remedies is impermissible.
g. The Respondent asserts that the Complainant, being a
defaulter in consideration/price, is not entitled to make any
complaint under Section 14 and 4 of the Act.
h. The Respondent claims that delays in project completion were
due

to

force

majeure

circumstances,

specifically

the

government's orders related to the Covid-19 pandemic, and
that the Complainant is estopped from challenging the
completion after acknowledging it.
i. The Respondent alleges that the Complainant filed multiple
complaints on frivolous grounds with the intent to defraud.
The Respondent argues that this deliberate action justifies the
dismissal of the present complaint.
j. The Respondent contends that the Complainant deliberately
suppressed material facts in the complaint, warranting
dismissal on this ground alone.
k. The Respondent prays for the dismissal of the complaint as
being incompetent and not maintainable. Additionally, the
Respondent requests the Hon'ble Authority to pass such
orders as deemed fit, just, and proper.

44.

The Authority, having duly considered the Interlocutory Application

dated 20.10.2023 submitted by the petitioner/respondent, hereby rejected the
same on 30.10.2023, deeming the matter to be maintainable and within its
jurisdiction. The petitioner contended that the allottee, being the complainant,
acquired the property from the landowner's share rather than from the
promoter/developer, and therefore, argued that the present matter falls
outside the jurisdiction of this Authority.
45.

Upon review, the Authority found that a plain reading of Section 2(zk) of

the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act indicates that any
individual who constructs or causes the construction of an independent
building or a building comprising apartments for the purpose of sale, etc., is
28 of 39

to be considered a promoter. In this case, the landowner is also deemed to
have caused the construction of the project in question. Consequently, the
respondent's plea asserting the inapplicability of this matter to the Authority's
jurisdiction is rejected.
46.

Furthermore, it is observed that the reliefs sought by the complainant

fall within the subject matter jurisdiction and are, therefore, maintainable.
Accordingly, the respondent's counsel is directed to file a counter to the main
complaint lodged by the complainant.
G. Observations of the Authority on IA filed by Complainant:
47.

Subsequently, on 05.03.2024, the complainant filed an interlocutory

application along with an affidavit dated 05.03.2024, seeking the production
of the letter dated 06.10.2021. This letter has been referenced by the
respondents in their counter for the purpose of comparing the signature with
the admitted signature of the petitioner/complainant. The complainant
contends that the said signatures have been forged and fabricated and asserts
that they never issued such a letter requesting the cancellation of the
agreement of sale.
48.

The Authority observed that the said application filed on 05.03.2024 by

the complainant erroneously addressed the Adjudicating Authority instead of
the Authority in the application. The complainant did not subsequently file
any correction petition or memo. Pursuant to Section 2(i) of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, “Authority” refers to the Real Estate
Regulatory Authority established under subsection (1) of Section 20. Under
Section 2(a) of the RE(R&D) Act, “Adjudicating Officer” refers to the
Adjudicating Officer appointed under subsection (1) of Section 71. These
definitions clarify that the powers vested in the Authority to issue directions
cannot be exercised by the Adjudicating Officer, and vice versa. Consequently,
the Authority rejected the application/petition filed.
H. The points for determination on the reliefs sought in the main
complaint are as follows:
29 of 39

a. Whether the present complaint is maintainable before the Authority.
b. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief(s) sought and, if so, to
what extent. Relief(s) Sought are as follow
i.

To conduct enquiry about the irregularities committed by the
Respondents and take appropriate action against the Respondents, by
imposing maximum penalty for contravention of section 4 of RERA Act;

ii.

To impose penalty for deviating the sanction plan without obtaining
prior Written permission as mandated under Section 14 of RERA Act;

iii.

To conduct enquiry for diverting the fund of allottees in contravention
to
Sub-clause (D) of clause (1) of sub-section 2 of section 4 of RERA
Act,and Impose penalty

50. POINT a: During the hearing, the Respondents contended in their
interlocutory application dated 30.03.2024, and in the reply filed, that the
present matter is not maintainable before this Authority. The Authority, in
paragraphs 44-45 of this order, has provided a brief explanation as to why the
application dated 30.10.2023 was prima facie rejected. However, as the
Respondent has raised the same issue in the main reply filed, the Authority
will now provide a detailed analysis of all the grounds raised by the
Respondent.
51.

The Respondent argued that the Complainant purchased the flat from

the landowner and not the promoter, and therefore, the matter is not
maintainable. As previously stated, the landowner, who is also responsible for
the construction of the concerned project, shall be considered a promoter in
the eyes of this Authority. According to Section 2(zk), any person who is
responsible for the construction is defined as a promoter.
52.

Further, the Respondent raised that the Complainant had already filed

a complaint in O.S No.38 of 2023 before the learned VI Additional District
Judge, Kukatpally, in respect of flat No. 1402, and the said suit was
dismissed. The Respondent alleges that this was suppressed by the
Complainant, and therefore, her fraudulent claim stands rejected by the civil
court. Consequently, she cannot pursue the same claim before this Authority,
as it is a matter of civil nature.
30 of 39

53.

The Authority observes that the reliefs sought by the Complainant

herein are different and fall within the provisions of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, thereby granting this Authority the
jurisdiction to adjudicate the subject matter of the present suit limited to the
reliefs sought. Furthermore, regarding the alleged suppression of the
dismissal of the suit, the Authority notes that the Order is dated 09.08.2023,
which is after the complaint was filed on 02.08.2023. Hence, this counterargument cannot be considered.
54.

Next, it is observed that the matter before the Adjudicating Officer

relates to the claim of refund and payment of compensation by the
Complainant. The matter before this Authority seeks action against the
Respondent for violations of the Act. This issue cannot be addressed by the
Adjudicating Officer. Therefore, the Authority is of the view that parallel
proceedings on the same cause of action cannot be allowed to continue.
However, since the reliefs sought are entirely different, there are no issues to
be raised.
55.

For all the foregoing reasons, the conclusion that emerges on Point A is

that the present complaint is maintainable. Point A is answered accordingly
against the Respondent and in favor of the Complainant.
56.

POINT b(i) and b(iii): The Complainant, in their reliefs, requested that

an inquiry be conducted into the irregularities allegedly committed by the
Respondent and for diverting funds of allottees. However, it is observed that
the Complainant has not submitted any substantial evidence that may raise
suspicions to this Authority to warrant an investigation against the alleged
irregularities by the Respondent.
57.

Point b (ii): The complainant has alleged a deviation from the

sanctioned plan without obtaining the consent of two-thirds of the allottees.
During the hearing, the Respondent submitted that no deviation was
conducted, as the Occupancy Certificate (OC) obtained in 2023 is self-

31 of 39

explanatory. However, upon examination of the records and documents
uploaded on the RERA website, the Authority has observed discrepancies.
58.

In regard where complainant alleged that the Respondent has failed to

take consent of 2/3rd allottees as per section 14 of the RE(R&D) Act. Section
14 reads as follow:
Section 14: Adherence to sanctioned plans and project
specifications by the promoter.
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.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, contract or
agreement, after the sanctioned plans, layout plans and
specifications and the nature of the fixtures, fittings, amenities
and common areas, of the apartment, plot or building, as the case
may be, as approved by the competent authority, are disclosed or
furnished to the person who agree to take one or more of the said
apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, the promoter
shall not make—
(i) any additions and alterations in the sanctioned plans, layout
plans and specifications and the nature of fixtures, fittings and
amenities described therein in respect of the apartment, plot or
building, as the case may be, which are agreed to be taken,
without the previous consent of that person:
Provided that the promoter may make such minor additions or
alterations as may be required by the allottee, or such minor
changes or alterations as may be necessary due to architectural
and structural reasons duly recommended and verified by an
authorised Architect or Engineer after proper declaration and
intimation to the allottee.
Explanation.—For the purpose of this clause, “minor additions or
alterations” excludes structural change including an addition to
the area or change in height, or the removal of part of a building,
or any change to the structure, such as the construction or
removal or cutting into of any wall or a part of a wall, partition,
column, beam, joist, floor including a mezzanine floor or other
support, or a change to or closing of any required means of access
ingress or egress or a change to the fixtures or equipment, etc.
(ii) any other alterations or additions in the sanctioned plans,
layout plans and specifications of the buildings or the common
areas within the project without the previous written consent of at
least two-thirds of the allottees, other than the promoter, who
have agreed to take apartments in such building.
Explanation.—For the purpose of this clause, the allottee,
irrespective of the number of apartments or plots, as the case may
be, booked by him or booked in the name of his family, or in the
case of other persons such as companies or firms or any
association of individuals, etc., by whatever name called, booked
32 of 39

in its name or booked in the name of its associated entities or
related enterprises, shall be considered as one allottee only.
(3) In case any structural defect or any other defect in
workmanship, quality or provision of services or any other
obligations of the promoter as per the agreement for sale relating
to such development is brought to the notice of the promoter
within a period of five years by the allottee from the date of
handing over possession, it shall be the duty of the promoter to
rectify such defects without further charge, within thirty days,
and in the event of promoter’s failure to rectify such defects
within such time, the aggrieved allottees shall be entitled to
receive appropriate compensation in the manner as provided
under this Act.

59.

A bare perusal of the aforementioned provision makes it abundantly

clear any additions/alterations in the sanctioned plan with respect to a
particular flat that has been allotted toa particular allottee can only be made
subsequent to a written consent taken in advance from the said allottee.
Similarly, where promoter seeks to make any additions/alterations in the
entire project, the consent of two-third allottees is mandated.
60.

Keeping this in view, the submissions of the complainant and the

Respondent with respect to this aspect are relevant to be noted. Complainant
submits that, initially the Respondent has uploaded a building on RERA
website, specifically Permit No. 53212/HO/WZ/Cir-11/2016 dated 9th May
2017, which designates the Amenities Block as Ground + 2 floors. Similarly,
the layout plan copy uploaded corresponds to the aforementioned permit. The
layout plan copy uploaded corresponds to the aforementioned permit.
Contrarily,

the

Occupancy

certificate

uploaded

under

permit

no.

1774/GHMC/SLP/2023 dated 6th June 2023 references a different building
permit number, namely 53653/HO/WZ/Cir-11/2016, which was obtained on
26th May 2023, and indicates that the Amenities Block is Ground + 3 floors.
In this regard, the complainant vehemently argues that Respondent has
obtained revised building permission on 23.05.2023, without the consent of
two-third allottees and that the same is in violation of section 14(2). In
accordance thereof, the complainant prayed to impose penalty.

33 of 39

61.

This Authority is of the preliminary view that the Respondent uploaded

the Occupancy Certificate bearing Permit No. 1774/GHMC/SLP/2023 dated
6th June 2023 but failed to upload the revised plan bearing Permit
No.53653/HO/WZ/Cir-11/2016, which was obtained on 26th May 2023,
citing reasons such as a server issue is in gross violation of the Section 11(3)
which categorically puts a mandated obligation on the promoter to make
available to the allottee the sanctioned plans, layout plans, along with
specifications, approved by the competent authority, and also the stage wise
time schedule of completion of the project including such revised permissions
which had been taken during the completion of the project. Providing
incomplete information to the allottees and this Authority is a gross violation
of the RE(R&D) Act. Further, it is also a mandated obligation of the
Respondent, under Section 14(2), to obtain written consent of at least twothird allottees in the project before making any additions/alteration in the
project.
62.

Per contra, the Respondent has failed to deny this very allegation. He

neither denies nor assents to taking any such revised building permission.
The Authority has conducted due diligence and has come to know that
Respondent has indeed submitted an application to the Greater Hyderabad
Municipal Corporation (GHMC) on 18th March 2023 under Sections 388, 428,
and 433 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, the Andhra
Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975, and the Andhra Pradesh
Building Rules, 2012. This application was approved by GHMC vide Approval
No. 53653/HO/WZ/Cir-11/2016 dated 25th May 2023 for Amenities Block
being Ground + 3 floors instead of the erstwhile plan having amenities block
as Ground + 2 floors, as mentioned above. However, issue herein is not with
respect to whether Respondent has taken subsequent permission or not,
issue is with respect to whether Respondent has taken prior written consent
from two-third allottees in the Project before applying for such revised
building permission. When the Complainant alleged such violation on part of
the

Respondent,

it

was

incumbent

upon

the

Respondent

to

have

substantiated whether any consent was taken or not. Merely not producing
34 of 39

any avermemt or document to the said allegation, cannot absolve the
Respondent from his liability towards the Complainant or the particular act of
alleged violation.
63.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thangam & Anr. Vs. Navamani Ammal

(Civil Appeal No.8935/2011), after finding that there is no specific admission
or denial by the appellant/defendant with reference to the allegation in
different paras of the plairt, categorically held as under:
"Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 CPC clearly provides for specific admission and
denial of the pleadings in the plaint. A general or evasive denial is not
treated as sufficient. Proviso to Order VIII Rule 5 CPC provides that even
the admitted facts may not be treated to be admitted, still in its discretion
the Court may require those facts to be proved. This is an exception to the
general rule. General rule is that the facts admitted are not required to be
proved"
65.

The Hon'ble Apex Court recorded that in line with Order VIII Rules 3 &

5 CPC, it is the bounded duty of the Respondent to deal specifically with each
allegation of fact of which he does not admit the truth.
66.

The Court also relied on Badat and Co. Bombay vs. East India Trading

Co., (1964 SCC 538). where the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while referring to
Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 opined that the said Rules formed an integrated code
dealing with the manner in which pleadings are to be dealt with. Relevant
para is extracted hereunder:
"These three rules form an integrated code dealing with the manner in
which allegations of fact in the plaint should be traversed and the legal
consequences flowing from its non-compliance. The written statement
must deal with specifically with each allegation of fact in the plaint and
when a defendant denies any such fact, he must not do so evasively but
answer the point of substance. If his denial of a fact is not specific but
evasive, the said fact shall be taken to be admitted. In such an event, the
admission itself being, no other proof is necessary."
35 of 39

67.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lohia Properties (P) Ltd. Tinsukia.

Dibrugarh As Atmaram Kumar ((1993) 4 SCC 67, also held as wmater
"What is stated in the above it, what amounts to admiting a fact on
pleading while Rule 3 of Order Vill requires that the defendant must deal
specifically with each allegation of fact of which he does not admit the
truth Rule 3 provides that every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not
denied in the written statement shall be taken to he admitted by the
defendant. What this rule astys, is, that any allegation of fact must either
be denied specifically or by a necessary implication or there should be at
least a statement that the fact is not admitted. If the plea is not taken in
that manner, then the allegation shall be taken to be admitted"
68.

Although the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) may not be

directly applicable, the Respondent is nonetheless obligated, under the
fundamental principles of legal procedure, to either admit or deny the fact of
having obtained consent from two-thirds of the allottees prior to submitting
the revised plan.
69.

In light of the above-quoted law of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it can be

reasonably established that the Respondent herein had the bounded duty to
avert to each and every allegation, more specifically the allegation in relation
to taking consent of two-third of the allottees before obtaining such sanction
plan. Since the Respondent has failed to avert to the said specific allegation, it
is presumed that the Respondent has admitted the allegation. Nothing
prevented the Respondent to produce a detailed and comprehensive reply
towards the said allegation and therefore, mere evasive denial cannot be taken
into consideration.
70.

Therefore, the Respondent is liable for violation of Section 14(2) by not

taking two-third consent from the allottees in the project before obtaining
revised sanctioned plan and is liable for penalty under Section 61 for the said
violation.

36 of 39

71.

However, merely imposing penalty does not mean to regularize the

violation of the provision on part of the Respondent. It is a deterrent and it is
for all the promoters to strictly comply with the provisions of the act without
any deviation to the detriment of the allottees. If it is provided in the Act to do
a particular act in a particular manner, it should be done in the said manner
only. The promoter has no discretion to conduct the said act at its own whims
and fancies. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in OPTO Circuit India Ltd. vs. Axis
Bank & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 2021) categorically held that if the
statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be
done in that manner alone and in no other manner.
72.

This omission on the part of the Respondent also constitutes a clear

violation of Section 11 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,
2016 (RE(R&D) Act), which stipulates as follows:
11. (1) The promoter shall, upon receiving his Login Id and
password under clause (a) of sub-section (1) or under sub-section
(2) of section 5, as the case may be, create his web page on the
website of the Authority and enter all details of the proposed
project as provided under sub-section (2) of section 4, in all the
fields as provided, for public viewing, including—
(a) details of the registration granted by the Authority;
(b) quarterly up-to-date the list of number and types of apartments
or plots, as the case may be, booked;
(c) quarterly up-to-date the list of number of garages booked;
(d) quarterly up-to-date the list of approvals taken and the
approvals which are pending subsequent to commencement
certificate;
(e) quarterly up-to-date status of the project; and
(f) such other information and documents as may be specified by
the regulations made by the Authority.
(2) The advertisement or prospectus issued or published by the
promoter shall mention prominently the website address of the
Authority, wherein all details of the registered project have been
entered and include the registration number obtained from the
Authority and such other matters incidental thereto.
(3) The promoter at the time of the booking and issue of allotment
letter shall be responsible to make available to the allottee, the
following information, namely:—
(a) sanctioned plans, layout plans, along with specifications,
approved by the competent authority, by display at the site or such
other place as may be specified by the regulations made by the
Authority;
37 of 39

(b) the stage wise time schedule of completion of the project,
including the provisions for civic infrastructure like water,
sanitation and electricity……

73.

As per Section 11(3)(a) of the RE(R&D) Act, it is the promoter's duty to

prominently display all sanctioned plans and layout plans approved by the
competent authority, making them available to the allottees by displaying
them at the site or such other place as may be specified by the Authority’s
regulations. Accordingly, it is apparent that Respondent 1 failed to provide
such information and misrepresented the allottees by not uploading the
revised plan vide Permit No. 53653/HO/WZ/Cir-11/2016 dated 25.05.2023
74.

In view of the above observations, the Authority also finds that the

Respondent has failed to comply with Section 11(1) of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, which mandates the upload of quarterly
updates. Respondent 1 is specifically instructed to diligently upload the
project status report on the RERA website, as mandated by Section 11(1) of
the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. This obligation must
be fulfilled within one week from the date of receipt of this order. Failure to
comply will result in subsequent action being taken by this Authority.
75.

To decide the quantum of penalty in the peculiar facts and

circumstances of the present case, it is pertinent to note the very act of
violation committed on part of the Respondent. A bare perusal of the revised
sanctioned plan dated 25.05.2023 makes it clear that the Respondent has
built another floor in the club house floor without taking consent from twothird allottees as required under the Act, 2016. Section 11(4)(f) read with
Section 17 provides that it is the responsibility of the Respondent to handover
the undivided proportionate title in the common areas, including the abovementioned club house with the additional floor so constructed, to the
association of allottees. Therefore, this Authority, deems it fit to impose a
penalty payable by the Respondent within 30 days from the date of this Order
failing which appropriate action under Section 63 will be initiated. It is
reiterated, yet again, that the imposition of this penalty is not intended to
38 of 39

regularize the Respondent's violation. Rather, it serves as a deterrent to
discourage similar infractions in the future.
76.

The Point b is answered accordingly.

77.

For contravention section 11 & 14 of the RE(R&D) Act, the Authority

exercising its powers under Section 60 & 61 of the RE(R&D) Act, imposes a
penalty on Respondent 1 of Rs. 27,50,00/-. The amount is payable in favor of
TGRERA FUND through a Demand Draft or online payment to A/c No.
50100595798191, HDFC Bank, IFSC Code: HDFC0007036, within 30 days of
receipt of this Order by the Respondents/Promoter.
78.

The Respondent 1 is hereby informed that failure to comply with this

Order shall attract Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act.
79.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. However, having regard to

facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.
80.

If aggrieved by this Order, the parties may approach the Telangana Real

Estate Appellate as per Section 44 of the Act, 2016.

Sd/Sri. K. Srinivas Rao,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

Sd/Sri. Laxmi NaryanaJannu,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

Sd/Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.),
Hon’ble Chairperson
TG RERA

39 of 39