Order Complaint No. 98 of 2024

-BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Dated:9th October 2025
Quorum:

Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.), Hon’ble Chairperson
Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Hon’ble Member
Sri Laxminarayana Jannu, Hon’ble Member
COMPLAINT NO. 78 OF 2024

Between
Smt. C. Vani Reddy
(W/ohupati Reddy, R/o Srusti Symphoy, flat no,303,A block,Kalajyoti Road,Masjid Banda,
Hyderabad – 500084)
…. Complainant
AND
1. M/s Srusti Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd.
(Rep by its ChairmanSri R Shyam Sunder Rao, R/o 21/A, HIG Phase III, New Santoshnagar
Colony, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500059)
2. G. Venkatesh Reddy – Managing Director,
(Managing Director of M/s Srusti Infra Developers (I) Pvt Ltd., R.o Flat no.501, Habitt
Home, street no.08, Hubsiguda, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500007)
3. Jupally Rajashekar Rao – Managing Director,
(Director of M/s Srusti Infra Developers(I) Pvt.Ltd R/o Lanco Hills Khajaguda,
Hyderabad)
4. Srusti symphony flat owners mutually aided co-operative maintenance society limited
5. (Rep by its Secretary Mr.Panjala Digamber Goud- flat no.g-01, ground floor, block B,
Srusti Symphony Apartments, #1-55/1, survey no.186/P, 187/P, Masjid banda, Kondapur,
Village, Serilingampally, Mandal,GHMC Serlinigampaly circle, Ranga reddy District,
Telangana State-500084)
…. Respondents
COMPLAINT NO. 98 OF 2024
Between
Sri Nyayapati Pattabhi Ramamiah
(S/o Nayatpati Ramanuja Swamy, R/o Srusti Symphony, flat no.306, Block E(Sarod),
Hyderabad 500084)
1 of 16

---

The present complainant came up for hearing before the authority wherein during the

course of the hearing, the Complainants appeared in person. Respondents No. 1, 2, and 3 in
2 of 16

---

As the issues raised in both complaints are substantially similar and arise out of the

same project and developer entity, the matters were clubbed and heard together for the purposes
of adjudication. The Authority hereby passes the following COMMON ORDER:
A. Briefs facts of the case as stated by the Complainants:
4.

The Complainants C. Vani Reddy (hereinafter Complainant 1) and Nyayapati Pattabhi

Ramamiah (hereinafter Complainant 2) submitted that M/s Srusti Infra Developers (I) Pvt.
Ltd., Hyderabad, launched a gated community residential project under the name “Srusti
Symphony”

situated

in Sy.No.186(P)

&

187(P),

Masjidbanda,

Kondapur

Village,

Serilingampally Mandal, within GHMC Serilingampally Circle, Ranga Reddy District,
Telangana. The Respondents had widely advertised the project by issuing brochures and
promotional materials highlighting the project specifications, master plan, and amenities.
Attracted by such representations, Complainant 1 purchased Flat No. 303, A-Block in the said
project in the year 2021 and the same was registered vide Document No. 523/2021, and
Complainant 2 purchased Flat No. 306, Block-E in the said project in the year 2022, and the
same was registered vide Document No. 4366/2022.
5.

The Complainant No. 1 submitted that an amount of Rs. 3,26,000/- (Rupees Three

Lakhs Twenty-Six Thousand only), and Complainant No. 2 submitted that an amount of Rs.
1,34,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty-Four Thousand only), calculated at the rate of Rs. 100/per sq. ft., was paid by them towards the corpus fund to the seller at the time of purchase. It was
contended that, as per the project specifications and mutual understanding, the promoter was
obligated to complete the project, obtain the Occupancy Certificate (OC) from GHMC, and
hand over possession along with all requisite documents and sanctioned plans. Further, the
corpus fund so collected was to be duly transferred to the association of allottees, which has not
been done till date.
6.

It was further submitted that the Respondents abruptly abandoned the project without

completing various essential works including fire safety systems, swimming pool, rainwater
3 of 16

---

The Complainants submitted that the Respondents have retained the corpus fund

collected from allottees at the rate of Rs. 100/- per sq. ft.In addition to this, an amount of Rs.
6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) was paid by the Complainants towards parking and
clubhouse facilities (amenities), the benefit of which remains unrealized due to non-completion
and non-transfer.
8.

The Complainants submitted that the Respondents have failed to take necessary steps

for converting the electrical connection from commercial to domestic use. It is submitted that
the electricity connection is still maintained as a commercial one in the name of M/s HARP
Rubber Products, which is causing the residents to incur higher electricity charges. Despite
repeated requests, no action has been taken by the Respondents in this regard.
9.

It was further submitted that the Respondents have dissolved the original development

entity, M/s Srusti Infra Developers (1) Pvt. Ltd., and have floated new companies using
separate identification credentials to undertake other real estate projects, thereby avoiding their
responsibility and obligations under the present project.
10.

The Complainants submitted that due to the Respondents’ failure to complete the

project in accordance with the sanctioned plan and specifications, the GHMC has withheld the
issuance of the Occupancy Certificate. As a result, the project is not eligible for the free water
supply scheme (20,000 litres per household), leading to an additional financial burden on the
residents who collectively spend approximately Rs. 25 lakhs annually for water. The
Complainant himself pays a monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 3,900/- along with seasonal
water charges of Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 3,000/- during the summer period.
11.

The Complainants submitted that despite being obligated to remit the corpus fund to the

association of allottees, the Respondents have failed to transfer an aggregate amount exceeding
Rs. 2.45 crores (inclusive of interest), thereby denying the association its rightful dues.
12.

The Complainants raised concerns about the substandard construction works undertaken

by the Respondents, particularly with regard to drainage pipelines that leak onto vehicles
parked in the cellar. It was further submitted that the failure to install proper window fittings
has led to accumulation of rainwater in the corridors, causing inconvenience and damage.
4 of 16

---

Aggrieved by the actions of the Respondent, Complainants sought for the following

reliefs:
i.

Direct the respondents to pay interest on the Rs. 3,26,000 and Rs. 1,34,000/—corpus
funds collected from Complainant 1 and Complainant 2, respectively, but not remitted to
the complainants from March 2022 until the refund date. Also, direct the Respondents to
hand over the Corpus Fund along with interest and the Occupancy Certificate to the ad
hoc committee.

ii.

Direct the respondents to pay interest on Rs. 17,857 per year for three years (totaling
Rs. 53,571) from 2022 until remittance and reimburse the complainant Rs. 17,857 per
year for water charges.

iii.

Direct the respondents to pay Rs. 10 lakhs in damages for unfinished works, including
the swimming pool, substandard terrace work, non-fixing of windows in corridors, and
substandard drainage pipelines.

iv.

Direct the respondents to immediately complete the works and pay the damages for the
following:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.

Completion of swimming pool
Obtaining Occupancy Certificate to reduce water bills
Completion of firefighting works left unfinished
Repairing the terrace
Fixing windows in corridors to avoid rainwater ingress
Completing parking in the stilt area

C. Counter on behalf of the Respondent:
14.

That the Complainant had approached this Hon’ble Authority with unclean hands by

suppressing material facts and, on that ground alone, the complaint was liable to be dismissed
as devoid of merit and filed with mala fide intent. With respect to the allegation concerning the
non-obtainment of the Occupancy Certificate (OC), they stated that an application had been
filed with the GHMC on 01.10.2021 and that the delay in issuance had resulted from objections
raised by GHMC including the non-development of the tot-lot, the construction of the Sewage
Treatment Plant within that area, the non-submission of block-wise details in the common
5 of 16

---

That the corpus fund had not yet been transferred to the Association because the formal

body of allottees was yet to be constituted under the applicable laws. However, to demonstrate
their bona fide intent, they had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with an Ad-Hoc
Committee of allottees on 21.02.2023, under which possession of units Nos. 101 and 103
(1,215 sq. ft. each in Block E, Sarod) and Flat No. 108 (1,710 sq. ft. in Block B, Sarangi) had
been handed over as security towards the corpus fund. In response to allegations of substandard
construction, they had put the Complainant to strict proof, noting that 140 of the 170 flats had
been occupied without any complaints, that Complainant 2 had acquired his flat from an earlier
allottee who had executed a Letter of Possession expressing satisfaction with its condition, and
that letters from other flat-owners affirming the quality of construction had been placed on
record. With regard to the electricity connection, the process of converting the common meter
from commercial to domestic use had been initiated on 19.11.2019, all dues had been duly paid,
and approval was pending, which the Respondents were actively pursuing. They had further
assured the Authority that construction of the swimming pool was in progress, work orders had
been issued, and the facility would be made available to residents at the earliest upon receipt of
the necessary approvals.
16.

That the Respondents deny each of the remaining allegations relating to fire-safety

systems, rain-water harvesting pits, clubhouse facilities, and the quality of terrace work, as
baseless and motivated solely by an intention to malign their reputation. In conclusion, they
submitted that the complaint was not maintainable, was devoid of merit, and comprised false,
frivolous, and malicious allegations. The Respondents, therefore, prayed that the complaint be
dismissed with exemplary costs in the interest of justice.

D. Rejoinder filed by Complainant 1:

6 of 16

---

That the allegation of unclean hands was baseless and, in fact, it was the Respondents

who, with mala fide intent, had abandoned the project without completing works as per the
sanctioned master plan, thereby causing financial and mental distress amounting to fraud. With
regard to the Occupancy Certificate, the mere act of applying on 01.10.2021 had not absolved
them of their statutory duty under Section 11 of the RERA Act, 2016; after executing sale deeds
and handing over possession, they had been bound to secure the OC within a time-bound
period. Their continued failure over more than three years had exposed occupants to legal and
physical risks, including a lack of insurance coverage in case of fire or accidents, and, despite
promises to expedite in 2021, no documentary proof of any steps taken had been provided,
thereby undermining their credibility. Furthermore, the contention that maintenance charges
were unrelated to the OC was incorrect: in the absence of OC, GHMC had withheld free water
supply, forcing residents to incur approximately Rs. 3 lakhs monthly on water, while
common-area electricity remained on a commercial tariff; the Complainant had paid Rs. 6,000
per month plus an additional Rs. 3,000 annually during summer. Of the 170 flats, 150 had been
occupied and 20 had remained under the Respondents’ possession, who had failed to pay
maintenance on these units, resulting in a shortfall of nearly Rs. 30 lakhs unfairly passed on to
the remaining residents, including the Complainant.
18.

That the Rs. 3,26,000 of the Corpus Fund in her case had been unlawfully withheld and

it had been the promoter’s duty to facilitate the formation of the association and to transfer the
fund into a separate or escrow account, and the MoU dated 21.02.2023 handing over keys of
three flats could not substitute this statutory obligation. The Respondents’ failure to disclose
account details for the corpus fund had indicated misappropriation and constituted civil
misconduct warranting penal and compensatory action. Contrary to their claim of no other
grievances, multiple letters from residents since 2021 had demonstrated collective
dissatisfaction, and their assertion that the complaint maligns them had served only to divert
attention from their lapses, namely, failure to secure the OC and mismanagement of funds.
Moreover, the mere issuance of possession letters and a “satisfactory” sale transaction had not
discharged their ongoing obligations to complete works, hand over documents, rectify
construction defects, and comply with building norms; such inaction and vague assurances had
continued to diminish property value and harm the Complainant’s investment. The
Complainant had further noted that she had been charged Rs. 10,00,000 towards amenities
(including parking), whereas other flat owners had paid only Rs. 6,00,000, yet the promised

7 of 16

---

That the Respondents’ claim of ongoing work had been unsubstantiated: despite

repeated statements over the last three years, there had been no visible progress on amenities
such as the swimming pool, and no documentary evidence of work progression had been
furnished, rendering their statements unreliable and evasive. As per the brochure, additional
facilities, a badminton court, half basketball court, intercom system, and cricket practice nethad
been promised but remained unfulfilled; the terrace had remained unfinished, causing rainwater
stagnation both on the terrace and in parking areas, as evidenced by photographs annexed to
this rejoinder, which had substantiated these deficiencies and demonstrated the Respondents’
unprofessionalism and breach of promises. The absence of the OC had even prevented GHMC
from levying property tax on individual units, further reflecting the project's-non-completion.
In view of these breaches of the RERA Act and applicable building permission rules, and given
that more than three years had lapsed without fulfillment of obligations, the Respondents’
counter had been evasive and devoid of any documentary evidence demonstrating good faith or
compliance.
E. Rejoinder Filed by Complainant 2:
20.

That the Respondents had failed to adequately address the allegations and issues raised

in the complaint. The flat was purchased from Mr. Malapaka Sampath Kumar with the
legitimate expectation that the Respondents would complete the project in accordance with the
sanctioned master plan and applicable legal norms. However, despite repeated assurances
including those made by the lawyer representing the Ad Hoc Committee that the Occupancy
Certificate (OC) and Corpus Fund would be handed over shortly, no progress had been made
for over two years. The Complainant had even been dissuaded from filing a complaint before
this Hon’ble Authority and was offered preferential parking in return. With all other avenues
exhausted and no resolution forthcoming, the Complainant was compelled to approach this
Authority, even though other allottees had refrained due to personal reasons. In response to
Para 2 of the counter, the Complainant denied the allegation of approaching with unclean
hands, and submitted that it was the Respondents who, with mala fide intent, had abandoned
the project mid-way, deviated from the sanctioned plan, and thereby committed acts amounting
to fraud and blatant disregard of their statutory duties.

8 of 16

---

That the mere act of applying for an OC on 01.10.2021 did not absolve the Respondents

of their continuing legal duty under Section 11 of the RERA Act, 2016 to secure the certificate
in a time-bound manner. The Respondents’ failure to do so had exposed the Complainant and
other residents to serious risks in case of emergencies, while simultaneously diminishing the
value of their properties. Despite meetings and assurances in 2021, the Respondents had failed
to submit any evidence of progress. The Complainant further submitted that objections raised
by GHMC were internal matters for which the promoter was solely responsible. The project
remained incomplete, and even after the filing of the complaint, the OC had not been granted,
clearly establishing the Respondents’ non-compliance. Regarding maintenance charges, the
claim that they were pre-decided and unrelated to the OC was untenable. Due to the absence of
OC, free water supply from GHMC had been denied, leading to a monthly burden of
Rs. 3 lakhs on the residents, as evidenced by demand notices issued by the Hyderabad
Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board. Electricity for common areas continued to be
charged at commercial rates. Moreover, the Respondents had retained 20 unsold flats and
defaulted on approximately Rs. 30 lakhs in maintenance dues, which had unfairly been shifted
onto the remaining allottees.
22.

That the Respondents’ refusal to transfer the Corpus Fund due to non-formation of an

association was in clear violation of their statutory obligation. The Respondents had failed to
place the corpus in a separate or escrow account and had misappropriated the same, as
evidenced by their refusal to disclose any account details. The MOU dated 21.02.2023through
which keys to three flats were handed over to an Ad Hoc Committee could not substitute the
legal requirement. This misuse of the Corpus Fund amounted to civil misconduct warranting
penal and compensatory action. In reply to Para 7, the Complainant denied that there were no
other grievances. Several residents had sent letters to the builder since 2021, copies of which
were annexed. Possession alone did not absolve the Respondents of their duties to obtain the
OC and hand over common amenities and documents. Inaction for over three years and failure
to address written communications had caused a significant decline in property value. The
Complainant had paid Rs. 6,00,000 towards parking and amenities but had not received the
promised facilities especially the fire safety system, which remained incomplete and posed a
serious threat. In reply to Para 10, it was submitted that the claim of “ongoing work” was
unsubstantiated, with no visible progress on-site or documentary evidence produced, despite
repeated statements over two years. The swimming pool remained non-functional, though
separate charges had been collected. The brochure promised a badminton court, half basketball
9 of 16

---

The Respondent had filed an Interlocutory Application (I.A.) seeking to implead the

“Srusti Symphony Flat Owners Mutually Aided Co-operative Maintenance Society Limited”
(hereinafter referred to as the “Impleaded Respondent”), which is the registered association
representing the allottees of the project “Srusti Symphony”. Upon perusal of the pleadings and
considering the nature of reliefs sought by the Complainants particularly those pertaining to
common amenities, maintenance, and corpus fund the Authority was of the considered view
that the said association constitutes a proper and necessary party for the effective adjudication
of the issues involved. Accordingly, the said I.A. was allowed, and the association was
impleaded as a Respondent to the present proceedings.
24.

It is further observed that the Complainants had also filed an Interlocutory Application

seeking appointment of a third-party technical agency for inspection of the project. However,
after examining the material on record and the stage of the proceedings, the Authority was not
satisfied that sufficient grounds had been established to warrant such inspection at this juncture.
Accordingly, the said I.A. seeking third-party inspection was rejected.
G. Counter filed by the Respondent 7:
25.

That the Complainant acted unilaterally and without bona fides, having neither

consulted the society nor participated in any community meetings. It was alleged that the
complaint was filed to serve personal interests and undermined the collective efforts of the
residents. On project issues, the society submitted that while a few amenities (such as fire
safety, STP, and swimming pool) remained pending or under progress, most had been
completed or were being addressed. Allegations of substandard work were denied as outdated
or already resolved. Regarding financial matters, it was submitted that although the corpus fund
had not yet been transferred, three flats were handed over through an MoU dated 21.02.2023 as
security. The society continued to follow up with the developer on this issue.
10 of 16

---

On the OC delay, it was submitted that procedural objections from GHMC, not project

incompletion, were the cause. The society clarified that electricity meter conversions were
ongoing and that the Complainant had taken possession, fully aware of the status of the OC. It
was further submitted that the Complainant’s reliefs, such as refund and compensation, were
individualistic, outside the scope of RERA, and risked disrupting the collective framework. The
rejoinder was criticized for containing unauthenticated documents and misrepresentations. In
conclusion, Respondent No. 4 reaffirmed its commitment to pursuing a resolution with the
developer in the common interest and clarified that it opposed disruptive actions, not
individuals.
H. Rejoinder filed by the Complainants:
27.

Complainants submitted that although no specific allegations were originally directed at

Respondent 7, it had unnecessarily aligned itself with Respondents No. 1 to 3 and adopted
contradictory positions, acknowledging lapses by the builder while unfairly attributing mala
fides to the Complainant. The Complainant emphasized that non-attendance at meetings was
irrelevant to the core issues, and Para 19 of the counter itself admitted that Respondent No. 1
remained responsible for several pending obligations, thereby supporting the substance of the
complaint. Allegations that the complaint damaged the project’s reputation were dismissed as
baseless and contrary to the intent of RERA, which exists to safeguard allottee rights.
28.

That the accusations of misinformation and personal gain were diversionary and

unsubstantiated. It was pointed out that Respondent 7 failed to inform residents about the Rs.
20 lakh corpus fund received from Respondent No. 1, raising concerns about transparency.
Respondent 7’s defence of the builder’s obligations, including the claim regarding Rs. 10 lakhs
paid by the Complainant towards amenities, was without authority and contradicted the record
of proceedings dated 03.09.2024. The Complainant reiterated that the responsibility for
converting electricity meters and securing the Occupancy Certificate lies solely with
Respondent No. 1. Assertions regarding completed fire safety systems, rainwater harvesting
pits, and STP were denied as misleading, with photographic evidence and recent reconstruction
works disproving such claims. The Complainant also highlighted that the project remained
incomplete, including the swimming pool and other promised amenities.
29.

That Respondent 1 had failed to comply with RERA obligations, including registration

requirements and proper handling of the corpus fund. The association, constituted only in
September 2024, had failed to initiate corrective action and instead turned hostile toward the
11 of 16

---

Upon perusal of the pleadings, documents placed on record, and oral as well as written

submissions advanced by both parties, the principal point for determination before this
Authority is: Whether the Complainants are entitled to the reliefs sought.
1) Whether the Complainants are entitled to interest or refund in respect of the corpus fund
paid to the Respondent Promoter?
31.

The Complainants have sought a direction to the Respondent Promoter to pay interest

on the amounts of ₹3,26,000/- and ₹1,34,000/-, respectively, collected from them towards the
corpus fund since March 2022, or in the alternative, to refund the said amounts
32.

The Authority observes that the grievance of the Complainants pertains to the corpus

fund collected by the Respondent Promoter but not transferred to the association of allottees. It
is a well-established principle under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016
that the corpus fund collected from allottees is a collective contribution meant for the welfare,
maintenance, and administration of the project as a whole. Such a fund cannot be diverted,
refunded, or utilized for any purpose other than the common benefit of the association of
allottees.
33.

The Respondent Promoter has contended that at the relevant time, no registered

association of allottees existed, and hence, the corpus fund could not be remitted. However, to
safeguard the interests of the allottees, the Respondent executed a Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU) dated 21.03.2023 with an ad-hoc association and handed over possession
of three residential units (Flat Nos. 101 and 103 in Block ‘E’, and Flat No. 108 in Block ‘B’)
belonging to the promoter’s share as security towards the corpus fund.
34.

It is a matter of record that the association has since been duly registered as “Srusti

Symphony Flat Owners Mutually Aided Co-operative Maintenance Society Limited” on
09.09.2024 under Registration No. TG/RRD/MACS/2024-61/FOW. The registered association
12 of 16

---

The Authority takes on record the Memo dated 10.04.2025 filed by Respondent No. 1,

wherein the Respondent undertook to transfer the entire corpus fund of ₹1,30,00,000/- (Rupees
One Crore Thirty Lakhs Only) to the registered association. In partial compliance, the
Respondent has issued and handed over the following cheques:
a. Two cheques of ₹10,00,000/- each, totaling ₹20,00,000/-;
b. Two cheques bearing Nos. 001626 and 001627 for ₹35,00,000/- each, totaling ₹70,00,000/-;
and
c. Two cheques bearing Nos. 001618 and 001619 for ₹10,00,000/- each, totaling ₹20,00,000/36.

Further, ₹20,00,000/- has already been deposited directly into the association’s account.

Thus, the entire corpus fund of ₹1,30,00,000/- stands duly accounted for and committed. The
registered association has confirmed receipt of the said cheques and has expressed no objection.
37.

In view of the foregoing, this Authority holds that the corpus fund is being duly remitted

to the registered association, which is the lawful and sole recipient of such funds. Corpus fund,
by its intrinsic nature, is a collective asset for the long-term maintenance and welfare of the
project and cannot be refunded to individual allottees. Accordingly, the relief sought by the
Complainants for a personal refund of their contribution, or for interest thereon, is legally
untenable and is hereby rejected.
38.

However, to ensure complete compliance, the Authority directs the Respondent

Promoter to ensure that the entire corpus fund of ₹1,30,00,000/- is credited to the registered
association within the mutually agreed timeline. In the event of any cheque being dishonoured
or default in remittance, the Respondent Promoter shall be liable to pay the balance amount
with applicable interest from the date of default until actual realization.
2) Whether the Respondents are liable to pay interest on ₹17,857/- per year for three years
(totalling ₹53,571/-) from 2022 until remittance, and reimburse ₹17,857/- per year towards
water charges?
39.

The Complainants have sought interest on additional water charges, contending that due

to the Respondent’s failure to complete the project and obtain the Occupancy Certificate,
GHMC withheld eligibility under the free water supply scheme. Consequently, the residents
bore additional expenses for alternative water supply.

13 of 16

---

The Respondents have countered that the allottees had voluntarily taken possession

prior to obtaining the Occupancy Certificate, fully aware of the implications and temporary
arrangements concerning water supply. The Authority finds this issue to be consequential to the
delay in obtaining the Occupancy Certificate, which is addressed separately below.
3) Whether the Respondents are liable to pay ₹10,00,000/- as damages for unfinished works
including the swimming pool, terrace work, corridor windows, and drainage pipelines?
41. The Authority observes that the Complainants’ claim for ₹10,00,000/- is, in substance, a
claim for compensation for alleged damages. Under Section 71 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, the
power to determine compensation or damages lies exclusively with the Adjudicating Officer.
The Authority, while exercising jurisdiction under Sections 31 and 34(f), is not empowered to
quantify or award compensation.
42. Accordingly, this relief is not maintainable before this Authority. The Complainants are at
liberty to file a separate application in Form ‘N’ before the Adjudicating Officer under Section
71 for adjudication of compensation, if so.
4) Whether the Respondents shall be directed to immediately complete the pending works and
obtain the Occupancy Certificate?
43. The Complainants allege that the Respondent has failed to complete the swimming pool,
firefighting system, terrace works, and window fittings in corridors. The Respondent has denied
all allegations, contending that the project is substantially completed, with 140 of 170 flats
occupied, and that all allottees executed possession letters acknowledging satisfactory
completion.
44.

The Association clarified that the Clubhouse and STP are operational and rainwater

harvesting pits have been duly constructed. However, it admitted that while the swimming pool
and firefighting systems are physically constructed, they remain non-operational and require
the promoter’s intervention to be made functional. The Association further stated that issues of
terrace water stagnation have largely been rectified and that opinions among residents differ
regarding the installation of corridor windows, which would constitute a design deviation.
45.

Considering the submissions, the Authority holds that the Respondent Promoter remains

obligated under Section 11(4)(a) of RE(R&D) Act to complete all promised amenities and
under Section 14(3) of RE(R&D) Act to rectify any structural or functional defects within the
prescribed period. Therefore, the Respondent Promoter is directed to make the swimming pool
14 of 16

---

The Complainants contended that despite applying for the Occupancy Certificate on

01.10.2021, the Respondents have failed to obtain it even after three years, thereby violating
Section 11(4)(b) of the RE(R&D) Act. The Respondents attributed the delay to certain
objections raised by GHMC, including non-development of the tot-lot area, construction of the
STP therein, and non-submission of block-wise details.
47.

Section 11(4)(b) of the RE(R&D) Act unambiguously mandates that the promoter shall

be responsible to obtain the completion or occupancy certificate, as applicable, from the
competent authority and make it available to the allottees or their association.
48.

The Authority finds that the reasons cited by the Respondent do not absolve them of

their statutory obligation. The record indicates that the GHMC had issued shortfall intimation
vide Letter No. 0011125/GHMC/0662/SLP1/2021-OC dated 01.10.2021, highlighting
deficiencies such as non-development of the tot-lot and the construction of the STP therein.
Nearly four years have elapsed, and the Respondent has failed to demonstrate compliance with
these requirements
49.

Such continued inaction clearly reflects a lack of due diligence and accountability on

the part of the Respondent Promoter. Shifting the burden onto the competent authority,
without first rectifying the identified lapses, is untenable and reflects an attitude of disregard
toward statutory duties.
50.

The Authority, therefore, issues a stern warning to the Respondent Promoter to

forthwith comply with all shortfalls pointed out by GHMC and to take immediate and
effective steps to secure the Occupancy Certificate. The Respondent shall ensure that the
Occupancy Certificate is obtained and handed over to the registered association without
further delay. Upon issuance of the Occupancy Certificate, the Respondent is further directed
to convert all common electricity connections from commercial to domestic use as per
applicable norms.
51.

The Authority reiterates that mere application for the Occupancy Certificate or partial

compliance does not discharge the promoter’s obligations. The promoter must actively pursue,
15 of 16

---

Sd/Sri K. Srinivasa Rao,
Hon'ble Member,
TG RERA

Sd/Sri Laxminarayana Jannu,
Hon'ble Member,
TG RERA

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

16 of 16

---